Crowder Vs Maza? Free Speech Vs Censorship? Private Company Vs Public Utility? I don’t know anymore.

M v C

 

Watch a Mary Ham break down the situation surrounding Carlos Maza and Steven Crowder (4:56):

Watch Phillip Defranco covering the situation:

Watch Tim Pool’s report on the situation:

Watch Tim Pool follow up on of the adpocalypse:

Watch Lauren Chen cover the situation:

Watch Joe Rogan’s reaction to the situation:

CNN business interviews Maza over situation:

Watch 1791 profile Carlos Maza:

Watch 1791 follow up with “The Aftermath”:

Watch Glenn Beck’s reaction to the situation:

Watch Glenn Beck interview Steven Crowder:

Watch Jimmy Dore react to the situation:

Watch David Pakman break down the situation:

Watch Secular Talk break down the situation:

Watch Sargon of Akkad react to the situation:

Watch the Quartering react to the situation:

Watch Ben Shapiro cover the situation:

Watch Steven Crowder in his own words, “I’m not sorry”:

 

It may be Steven’s right to say whatever he wants but let’s not kid ourselves, there is speech that you just can’t defend. Using the word “fag” on a t-shirt you sell as merch, that’s not a hill worth dying on. Nor is it something I would want to support or sympathize with. He’s used the word fag regularly like in events held with Milo. Youtubers are more than just commentators, they’re role models to their audience. But when you look at what crowder actually says about Maza it’s always in the context of rebuttal.

He’s never said anything remotely close to anything like “this is the problem with the gays” or “people like Maza” or “he’s like this because he’s gay”. No. It’s always been an attack on Maza himself as an individual. And I’m sorry but when you create political commentary content where you’re whole shtick is criticising others, it’s just plain fair game that others are going to react to what you say. What is Maza actually asking for here? And by going after youtube Maza is demonstrating the very mob behaviour and targeting that he claims youtube enables in others. Critics have been parodying each other forever. Crowder denounces all forms of doxing and online bullying. This is not just to formally cover his ass, he knows and makes clear that is is exactly what people like Maza want so they can claim that sweet, sweet victimhood and it plays right into their narrative. Online bullying is never ok and never helps anyone. Crowder understands this and always denounces it. The responsibility of creators for their followers is another conversation.

When he exaggerates Maza’s excentricisms, is that homophobia? If you’re someone I don’t like, I might call you a cock sucker. If you were gay but I didn’t know, would I be a homophobe? If I did know you were gay and still called you that, would I be a homophobe? If you subscribe to intersectional doctrine then yes, as a CIS, white male I have no right to criticise anyone above me on the hierarchy. And my insult will be found to be discrimination of some kind. If it’s directed at a gay man, it’s homophobic. If it’s directed at a woman it’s misogynist. If it’s aimed at a “person of colour” then it’s racist. And if it doesn’t comfortably meet the definition of racism then we’ll just call it coded language to dog whistle white supremacy.
In the context of intersectionality, CIS white males will inevitably be found to be guilty and tainted and problematic because that is the status of my identity group. Despite the fact that when I’m using such language, I’m never thinking about the act itself. Nor am I using it to bring about visuals of such acts being performed by the people such comments are targeting. I’m probably just using that language because I think it’ll offend you. And if I’m using that language I probably want to offend you. I’m just intending to piss you off, nothing more, nothing less. But thoughts, actions and the intention around them are irrelevant. If you are not a member of the protected class then you will face the consequences of your actions and cited as an example of things like “genocide”. That all being said… did I have to call the person a cock sucker in the first place? Probably not.
This leads me to an email I sent to Steven Crowder about 2 years ago. I had just created a youtube account to investigate this whole youtube thing after the Trump election and crowder was one of the first channels I discovered. After so long following him closely I felt the need to email him a critique. I wrote to him that I felt he was wrong to use words like Faggot. Even if it is in talking to Milo Yiannopoulos through mutual respect. I don’t recall him ever using the word Nigger but he’s always engaged in real spicy language. I told Crowder that he may have every right to say absolutely whatever he wants but the reality is having an audience makes him a role model as much as he is a comedian or commentator. And his advocacy for conservative values and free speech is noble. But his careless use of spicy language really just makes him look like a bully and that he only wants free speech to be an asshole.
I believe in absolute freedom of expression but free speech doesn’t mean freedom against consequence. However this regulation should always be socially enforced and not legislated into law. The government regulation of speech will always be a gross conflict of interest. If you’re not scared of a liberal telling you what’s acceptable to say or do, try having a conservative telling you what you can say or do. This is not the role of government. Public discourse is best left up to the public. And the amendments we currently have on free speech is already borderline too much but fair enough. Defamation, incitement of violence, etc. Fair enough. People will get in line with their tribes based on what’s socially acceptable to say. This plays out every day as we all self censor over controversial issues.
So I warned Crowder that if he insisted on using, what I have been calling, “indefensible speech” then one day he would be targeted and his arguments would be reduced to  holding him to account for this spicy language. Using words like Faggot isn’t a hill worth dying on. And freedom of individual expression is far too important to be taken down by such shallow defenses. These are words that are so morally powerful they bind and blind people and recruit free speech opposition quicker than any advocacy argument could ever back them off that cliff. And here we are today, Crowder being accused of hate speech. Not because of his “change my mind” segments or his one-on-one interviews or his comedic sketches or his collaborations. It’s over the word fag.
He can be as ‘not sorry’ as he wants, the damage is already done. Not from his base but to his credibility to those sitting on the fence. The more he frames things as “us versus them” and the more he appeals to tribalism the more he contributes to polarization. And that’s why Crowder is in the wrong with this issue. I can play devils advocate for Crowder in this situation and I believe Maza is also wrong and also disingenuous but that doesn’t mean Crowder is right. They’re both wrong for their own reasons. These issues need to be contended with responsibly and with the seriousness they deserve. Crowder is not doing this and no amount of “some of my best friends are fags” style defense will ever make him right.
He’s making money and gaining subs despite his demonetization so if money is the only measure of success then sure, he’s winning. I only see an empty victory. Is Crowder a comedian? Not in the traditional sense of a comedian but if Stephen Colbert, Fallon and Kimmel pass as comedians then Crowder does as well. But their partisanship doesn’t grant them the kind of pass I would grant people like Kevin Hart or Bill Burr, etc. Crowders show is clearly intended to be a political commentary dressed up with entertaining sketches and bits to make it more palatable. That does not exempt him of scrutiny nor has he ever shied away from challenges. Provocation is part of his style and that is aimed at shock value and intended to challenge you. This is also not a defense for indefensible speech.
When I engage in road rage on the highway I don’t stop and think rationally of what the most appropriate wording of outrage would be to use so that I don’t offend my perpetrator. Instead of “dumb bitch” I use “silly goose” and instead of “mother fucker” I say “non-gender-conforming parental guardian consentual fornicator”. Look, I’m not equating delivering a speech to the world to the same standard as road rage but sometimes an emotional reaction can result in impulsive inappropriateness. And as Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
My point is Crowder doesn’t like Maza. Why would he give a shit about Maza’s feelings? Sure, you’re a content creator and you shouldn’t appeal to outrage. And in an ideal world we would all be polite to one another. But Maza does the exact same thing by demonizing those he criticizes. Maza’s advocating for one identity group being a protected class over another identity group. Again, it always comes down to socialism with these guys. Political correctness is just fascism with manners. If social media wants to start promoting some content while censoring other content then how does this not make them a publisher? News media relies on all social media for their reporting now, it’s cited as a publisher source constantly. But everytime they favour one voice over another they are actively in conflict with constitutional rights. You guys want to end discrimination? Then there can be NO protected category of ppl over other ppl. period. Every time any protected class is favoured, all those outside the protected class are discriminated against.

Now as for Maza. All I can say is the guy isn’t real journalism, it’s the exact activist based narrative propaganda that he himself is so critical of. Crowder isn’t fooling anyone by using the word “Figs” instead of “Fags” on his shirt. Maza isn’t fooling anyone by advocating for acosting people with milkshakes isn’t an incitement for violence. I’ll tell you right now if you ever threw a milkshake at me I’d beat the ever living fuck out of you. I have my own hateful conduct policy. Kill me or regret it. So he violates actual laws but you’ll never see it enforced because society is adhering to this social justice rhetoric around protected classes.

I can appreciate that he may call himself a gay wonk and that doesn’t automatically exempt others from scrutiny for engaging him with the same language. I believe the word Nigger is reprehensible and should never be used. However I don’t care when I hear it in a song or in the context of news and the like. But the main point here is that Maza has entered the public domain to target and criticize others. This is his career. He gets paid to do this. This puts him squarely smack dab in the middle of the marketplace of ideas. His ideas and opinions are just as up for scrutiny as those he targets. He, himself, engages in the same demonizing language he’s critical over Crowder using.

He thinks he’s right based on his race and sexual orientation and Crowder is inherently wrong as a measure of his race and sexual orientation. Maza is wrong. He claims Youtube doesn’t care about it’s LGBTQ creators. This is a lie and his calls for protest are all simply aimed at damaging youtube and the creators on their platform. He even admits himself this isn’t really about Crowder. And he chose to do all of this at the same time of a vox walkout and during pride month. It’s calculated, manipulative and disingenuous. His proclamation of victimhood is, in my opinion, purely aimed at harming others. The mainstream hit pieces that have followed reinforce my feeling that this is just another attempt to reclaim lost ground against alternative media.

 

He’s doing it for the clicks clap

He’s doing it for the clicks clap

He’s doing it for the clicks clap

 

 

Watch Philly D cover new main stream media hit pieces:

Watch Tim Pool’s coverage of Media hit piece:

Watch The Quartering react to the media hit piece:

Watch 1791 cover the media hit piece:

Watch Secular Talk cover the media hit piece:

Watch Ben Shapiro’s coverage of the media hit piece:

 

So in closing, I need to ask. What exactly are we talking about here? Is this just a fight between Crowder and Maza? Well neither knows each other personally and it’s pretty clear that both parties have their own personal agendas behind their faux feud. So this really isn’t a conflict between these two. Is this a conversation about censorship? Maza makes clear that it’s not enough to demonetize creators channels, citing websites like patreon. Youtube has nothing to do with Patreon. Is it not enough to censor a creator? Must there be a collaborative effort to destroy the lives of those we deem ‘problematic’? Youtube can change it’s policies every hour if they want, I don’t think that’s what the issue is really about.

I think this all comes down to the big question of what is social media? Is it a private company that is allowed to ‘hire’ and ‘fire’ anyone they deem harmful to their brand? Is it a publication that produces us with news? Well all mainstream media has no problem citing social media for anecdotes in their work. All media utilize social media for their content to reach far beyond the municipal boundaries of their broadcast. Is social media really just a company that aims at only making money?

Well if social media wants to continue to regulate content then it increasingly fulfills the role of publisher as it guides our attention and calculates it’s recommendations. Maybe a better question is what is social media to us? Internet in general is now considered a basic human right as more people do their banking, communications and coordination through their smart devices or computers. Trying to live without a phone or access to internet truly does present very real barriers to thriving in a society that demands instantaneous communication.

Here are a few other good questions. If you cannot network, plan, promote, advertize or advocate on social media, how does that impact your professional and/or social life? Would you suffer damages by being barred from utilizing social media? What advantages would others have over you if you were not allowed access to social media while running for political office? While others have access to it but you don’t. How would that impact the election of your riding? Better yet, could you ever become president/prime minister without a presence on social media? I don’t think you could run a competitive campaign without some degree of social media activity.

How significant is our online avatar? Is our online presence as significant as our physical self in real life? If you disappeared from social media, would it have a measurable impact on your real life friendships? Could that lead to falling out with certain friends? Your profile, your avatar, your page, your library. Are these personalized home pages shares? Does holding a personal account/home page equate to holding a share within the company if it’s profitability is derived from your account/content? Is there an argument there that your account is a form of equity? Canadian government ruled that points accumulated on reward cards like air miles is a form of equity that is owned by the card holder, not air miles. This after Air Miles attempted to retroactively apply an adjustment to terms and conditions around accumulated points. Government ruled that unconstitutional. They ruled that digital equity could be property. Does my participation on social media produce equity that I should be entitled to?

Are these companies monopolies? What relationship do we have with social media? Is it addictive? Could it be so intrinsic to our functionality that social media can become a symbiotic relationship with us? It may be true that social media are private companies. This also means they are unelected officials regulating the centre of public discourse. So what responsibilities do these companies have in the symbiotic relationship their products have with our lives? Are these platforms an open forum? I don’t have the answers but I think after seeing just how far you can flesh out the significance of social media it tends to feel more like a public utility than merely a private platform. Perhaps how it functions goes beyond it’s intended design. But if it meets the definition of a public utility then we cannot ignore the conversation around civil rights. And if access to these platforms is a civil right then it’s pretty clear the conversation around regulation is far from over and far more complex than it seems.

 

 

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth”

– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Apparently beheading the premier isn’t hate.

queens park 2

This week there was yet another protest outside Queen’s park because #fuckford. It will forever be the conservative burden to inherit deficits in the billions, make the unpopular decisions necessary to balance the budget. Then they inevitably find themselves dethroned by tax and spend liberals who go back to running up deficits. We have created a culture in our politics where funding is commensurate with compassion. And unless we’re spending money on it, we don’t care about it.

By the way, ignore the marxist flag donning the hammer and sickle. Marxism is a conservative conspiracy. It doesn’t exist on the left or in academia or anywhere. The marxist lie is a conservative straw man. It’s probably photoshopped, right? PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE IRON CURTAIN!

queens park 1

If teachers experience cuts, the PC government must hate teachers. If healthcare experiences cuts, the PC government must hate doctors and nurses. If cut taxes then this must only mean the PC government loves evil corporations. Are we really making the case that government has been 100% efficient and there is no room at all for cuts of any kind? Are we really arguing that while the rest of us in the private world have to endure the fluctuating risk the economy threatens us with every day, those who work for the government, whose payroll exists off of the taxes we pay, should never have to worry about their job security? Are we really arguing that there is NO wiggle room for innovation  to find efficiencies in government at any level?

What’s been really bothering me since the election is to see the change in Andrea Horwath. The language she’s been espousing has been increasingly unparliamentary and she now has taken a position to simply oppose anything and everything proposed by this conservative government. The latest example was her absolute opposition to free dental care for seniors. I believe Horwath is now in part responsible for an increase in vitriolic anti-government activism we’re seeing unfold.

TVO featured “Ontario’s new political landscape” where a panel reacted to the election results where Brittany Andrew-Amofah of the broadbent institute literally said, “what happened last night was a false majority that can only be produced under a first-past-the-post system.” Keep in mind that the conservatives took 76 seats out of the total 134 seat legislature, the NDP won 40, the Liberals 7 and the Green 1. To form majority a party only needs 63 seats. With 76 seats awarded to Doug Ford’s PC government, I have no problem speculating that even if we had used a different method besides first-past-the-post we likely still would’ve seen a conservative majority.

What Brittany is really saying that unless they have a political party who promotes their ideologies then that government will be illegitimate in their eyes. In the panel discussion Steve Paikin asks Brittany, “Are you prepared to give this guy a chance or do you see job one right now as defeating him?” This was Brittany’s response:

I see job one right now as amplifying the need for progressive movement within our province and also discussing what will potentially be at stake. So the search for efficiencies is a very scary search. Where are we going to be cutting from? Where are the efficiencies going to be coming from? And I think that needs, that deserves interrogation and hasn’t been interrogated enough. When we talk about efficiencies are we talking about social services? Are we talking about the money that is being given to our shelter system?

Steve: Well you do know he’s got a pharma care plan. It might not be as good as the other two parties but he’s got something. He’s got a childcare plan. You may not like it as much as the other two parties but he’s got one. He’s got a mental health spending plan as well. He’s got a transit plan. It may not be –

Steve’s interrupted by Brittany, “as in depth as it probably should be.”

“Or might be,” Steve continues, “but he’s got something to say about these things. Does that help you at all?”

Brittany, “no, because this party has been focussed on talking about efficiencies and talking about cleaning up what’s happening at Queen’s Park. Yes, Wynne has gone wrong and maybe several different areas when it comes to hydro, when it came to a number of different issues but there are a lot of progressive gains that need to continue to be made and that needs to be built upon from when Wynne had left. So I think that’s a risk here and if we’re focussing solely on his (she then performs air quotes) “search for efficiencies” then I don’t know how true those statements are.

Let me remind you that the recording of this episode took place the day after election day. This is her reaction to the conservatives the DAY after election day. What we see here isn’t a realistic critique of job performance or policy legislation, this is her simply disqualifying the new majority government as elected by the people due to nothing more than their political identity. This is what hyper partisanship looks like. She sits there and equates budget cuts to punishment and uses it to fear monger that this government will use their power to punish the weak and marginalized. It’s not a political analysis, it’s a post-modern style deconstruction framed around intersectional narratives. Notice her inability to acknowledge minority group support for Doug Ford and Ford Nation? Because it’s counter narrative, which could never be true, so it’s obviously just lies. Conservative Rhetoric. Misinformation. Fake news. Far-right conspiracies. etc, etc, etc.

This was the rhetoric coming out of those left of the political spectrum the day after election day. The NDP put forth more radical candidates than ever before. Like Laura Kimiker who ran in my riding of Mississauga Center was a self described Marxist and called Poppies war glorification. I’ve greatly respected Andrea Horwath throughout her role as opposition throughout my lifetime watching provincial politics. She’s a veteran in the game and I truly believe she sincerely advocates for truly vulnerable people and for opening opportunities to everyone. However she’s seen how greatly her party benefited from a more populist, radical campaign message and she’s changed her tune to appeal to exactly this populism.

That’s why Andrea Horwath today has no problem openly calling Doug Ford a ‘dictator’. Which if it came from a conservative, would be called a dog whistle promoting violence and hate. So what is it when it’s done on the left? Oh, NOW it’s just free speech. Horwath has the freedom to express any view she wants. And I’m equally allowed to call her a silly fucken hack for choosing to do so. I believe the more she shifts towards the social radical marxist types, the more she will dispossess the grass roots supporters of the parties who just wanted better health care, not a marxist reform. My prediction is once the party is nothing but radicals then this will simply disqualify them and I think we will see more surge in Green support as an alternative to what has been the alternative for decades. I think Green will replace the NDP.

Horwath

She’s had no problem throwing out slurs, parliamentary disruptions, calls to activism and yet she refuses to take responsibility for how discourse has been changing around Queens park. If you only pay attention to the mainstream news outlets, CTV, CBC, Macleans, etc, you’d believe that the only reason conservatives are surging in support around the country is believe of Facebook fake news and white supremacy. When in reality we’ve seen, in my opinion, more openly hateful protests against conservatives than anyone else.

doug ford 1

The following images were taken from the office of MPP Laurie Scott’s office upon amending the minimum wage bill.

Labour Minister Laurie Scott 3Labour Minister Laurie Scott 1Labour Minister Laurie Scott 2doug ford 2

 

Several months ago truckers from around the country rallied and drove to Ottawa to show their support for pipelines. They donned yellow vests inspired by french protests against their carbon taxes. They felt Trudeau has turned his back on Albertans and waste billions of dollars and Saudi Oil rather than cycling it back to the Canadian economy. There were online forums where these people organized and shared talking points. Apparently some have shared anti-immigrant sentiments. Faith Goldy and Rebel Media also attended the protest. The media took these details and slandered the entire protest as one of promoting hate and violence. The convoy was portrayed as just a group of white supremacists. The usual slurs aimed at disqualifying dissent and aimed at banning wrongthink.

united we roll

The only point I’m making here is simply this. Populism is increasing as polarization increases. This is not just happening among conservatives but also with liberals. If not more. We all need to hold ourselves accountable at the individual level. But this is just another example of the media’s bias against conservatives. Conservatives simply show up to peacefully protest and they’re labelled racists. But if you’re protesting conservatives, that’s just your civil right. Despite how inappropriate your conduct is.

Like, what exactly are they trying to say here? If you question social justice initiatives you disqualify yourself from public discourse? Well, that seems to be the case from what I’m seeing media wide. You watch how the media treats Scheer or Ford versus how they treat Trudeau and Horwath and it’s easy to see. If you have anything to say about Trudeau’s #welcometoCanada? Guess what, you’re a nazi. Bring a guillotine to Queens Park and behead an effigy of Doug Ford? That’s just you’re civil right.

Do these people have a right to call for the death of politicians? Actually no, that’s incitement of violence. Murder and policy critique are two very different things. If I followed the same logic that the social justice leftists follow then Andrea Horwath would be a Marxist for having posed for pictures with a group who had Marxists among them. However I don’t follow social justice logic so, no, I don’t think Andrea Horwath is a Marxist by association. But when she’s posing next to a skeleton and signs reading #fuckford then I simply have this to ask you. What if roles were reversed and it was Doug Ford protesting an NDP government by posing with skeletons and hashtags #fuckhorwath. All media everywhere would be reporting this as a KKK rally. So if it would be inappropriate to one party, it should be equally condemned on the other front.

queens park 3

But what we’re seeing here isn’t any effort to consider any of that. Even if this conservative government for some reason matched the same policies as the previous liberals and their government mirrored one another, you would still see vitriolic protests. There is nothing this government can do to appease the angry social justice mob. It’s not about the cuts or the budget. It’s about capitalism and hatred. Hatred for everyone who disagrees with the social justice narrative. Feminist narratives of empowering women fall short when conservative female MPPs need to hire security over death threats. It is literally and metaphorically a call for the death of our political system and a call to complete reform to socialism. And while the conservatives come under constant attack on all fronts, they’re tasked with saving this province from itself. Remember this in 3 years when we’re back at the ballot box.

Even Slavoj Zizek himself thinks that political correctness is exactly what perpetuates prejudice and racism. So put that in your Marxist Vape Pens and smoke it 500 metres away from any public entryway.

 

 

“one needs to be very precise not to fight racism in a way which ultimately reproduces, if not racism itself, at least the conditions of racism.” – Slavoj Zizek

CBC interviews terrorist on EASTER SUNDAY

Watch the True North Initiative recap the events of Omar Kadhr:

Watch CBC episode on Omar Khadr:

 

Dear everyone who claims there is no culture war going on and everything is a conservative conspiracy, why is CBC choosing to interview a convicted terrorist who fought alongside a terrorist organization responsible for killing hundreds of Christians every year? A terrorist who pleaded guilty to murdering an american medic and injuring another american soldier?

Why, out of 365 days in a year, does CBC choose EASTER sunday to hold this interview with this terrorist? Is there a place and time to hold this conversation? Sure. I don’t like it but sure. But EASTER SUNDAY? from now on anyone who wants to cite any CBC article to me, you can expect me to simply refer you to this as my response. CBC is completely morally bankrupt at this point as far as I’m concerned.

I can appreciate the exploration of grey areas but this is pretty black and white to me. I have no problem seeing what’s obviously wrong with this. But I’m not surprised by it. And this is why it’s clear to me that the CBC should no longer receive federal subsidization. Let their ideas face the free market and see if anyone will support their trash out in the real world alongside all the other media.

how is this not a direct assault on Christians? and a slap in the face to all of our veterans? You want to talk about dreaming of an ordinary life? Why don’t you ask that of the widow and children of the medic HE MURDERED? Just when I thought the Omar Khadr affair couldn’t stoop any lower, CBC proves me wrong. Wow. Defunding the CBC just became a huge voting issue for me.

 

american back view burial cemetery
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

 

 

“Terrorism works better as a tactic for dictatorships, or for would-be dictators, than for revolutionaries.”
― Christopher Hitchens

Jordan Peterson is Marilyn Manson From 1998

Screen-Shot-2019-03-21-at-7.14.06-PM

Having had some time to digest Christchurch I couldn’t help but think back to the gutted feeling I felt back when I heard about the columbine shooting. Which brought on the question, “was bowling for columbine the first documentary that got me into documentaries?” Good old Michael Moore. And then I thought of my favourite part of that movie. The scene where he sat down with Marilyn Manson, who was largely being blamed as responsible for the Columbine shooting because of the manipulative nature of his “evil” song lyrics. Parents were deranged by the Marilyn Manson hysteria, thinking his music would seduce their children into becoming Satanists. Even my mom didn’t want me listening to Marilyn Manson. She was afraid it would radicalize me.

Watch Michael Moore interview Marilyn Manson in Bowling for Columbine:

That’s when it hit me. Jordan Peterson and other alternative media content creators who are finding themselves being blamed for the Christchurch shooting is all based on the same ignorance that came from blaming Marilyn Manson for Columbine. Perhaps there’s a link there. And I think there is. Perhaps it’s the ‘ignorance’ part. Back when I was a kid Marilyn Manson was accused of radicalizing teens into Satanists. Pokemon and Harry Potter allegedly corrupted children’s minds because wizardry was the work of the devil. Seriously, anyone my age remember this?

Watch old video on the evils of Pokemon:

Now, for all the pointing and laughing I did at these people I find myself today looking at shows like Sabrina on Netflix and literally hoping parents don’t let their kids watch such a morally ambiguous, ultra-dark, adult-themed show. But let’s be real, this fucken show is 100% aimed at robbing children of their innocence. It’s completely fucked up. I am a guy who loves his adult themes and dark side to humanity but Sabrina is darker than dark. It’s actual occult indoctrination. And that’s fucked up. Can’t wait to see the next generation post generation Z.

Next I will be the one holding the signs at the street corner preaching the end is Nye. Bill Nye. When morals are politicized and dictated to us by the morally ambiguous.  After the Christchurch shooting one of the first people to find himself a target of the SJW mob was Jordan Peterson. The greatest intellectual of our time that we don’t deserve. Only in today’s world could a self help book be banned in the wake of a mass shooting by a white supremacist. But you still have complete access to mein kampf. With a lazy excuse cited regarding someone Jordan took a picture with.

Watch We the Internet TV debunk Bill Nye (+ Is Bill Nye Thanos?):

Having attended one of Jordan’s lectures as he tours the world, I happen to know in order to get a photo like this with Jordan you need to buy a VIP ticket. Then at the end of the talk you line up with all the other VIPs and one by one each person gets about 15 seconds with Jordan to say a quick hello and take a photo then you move on and are issued a password to log onto the website later to search for your photo. Jordan has done this with literally THOUSANDS of people and frankly whether or not he was aware of what this shirt read is totally irrelevant.

What’s he going to do? Tell the dude who paid $200 for a VIP ticket to go change his shirt? To leave? Sure, he could, if he was a dick. Do you take responsibility for every single person’s political and moral views before you take a photo with them? Oh but sure, let’s hold others accountable for a standard we don’t hold ourselves to. Let’s all get out our yearbook and now own the guilt by association of everyone from that class photo who went on to commit wrongdoing. No holes in that logic. None at all. I genuinely do not understand this guilt by association concept. As if you need to justify why you follow a certain individual.

JBP1

I watch people like Tim Pool, Styxhexenhammer, Ben Shapiro and others. Does that mean I automatically agree with everything they say? Not at all. These are all guys who have a knack for thinking about things in very different, creative ways than how I’m use to looking at them. And I value that. Ben Shapiro in particular has challenged my views on abortion in a very big way. And it’s shown me that there is a lot more to consider before making up my mind. I appreciate having my ideas challenged.

Jordan Peterson challenged my simplistic views of the bible and of western society. And after reading his book I’ve applied his rules to my life to the best of my ability and I’m seeing my life improve dramatically. If this doesn’t work for other people, fair enough. But why does that make ME a bad person? Why does any of this make Jordan a bad person? It doesn’t. Is it better to follow people like Kim Kardashian and live a superficial, mediocre existence?

People are more engaged in real issues today more than ever and that’s only a good thing. If the only reason we shouldn’t be following people within the Intellectual Dark Web is because they’re contrarians and disagreeable people make you feel bad then frankly it’s time to grow the hell up. Bill O’Reilly reacted to the tsunami in Japan which caused the Nuclear plant meltdowns by saying, “God remembers pearl harbour.” People didn’t say shit then nor do they care now. Rush Limbaugh has said shit that would probably actually justify comparing him to Hitler. There’s a reason why people don’t give a shit about those ACTUAL far-right wing figures. They’re not very influential. Because that brand of extreme politics actually isn’t very popular.

JBP10 (2)

And the majority of people who tuned into their shows were old, retired, hard leaning conservatives. The “get the F off my lawn” crowd. That brand has nothing to do with the IDW crowd. Yet the IDW crowd continuously gets labelled as “alt-right”. And I really do believe that the reason things are so polarized now is frankly because of Trump people are only paying attention now. Most elections don’t see a large voter turnout. If you’ve discovered politics for the first time then, yes, I understand the hysteria. Politics is ugly. And if you don’t understand how politics work then you’re just going to act like chicken-little screaming about the sky falling. Which pretty accurately describes SJWs. Oh if I don’t get a gender neutral bathroom then that’s genocide. How about we drop you off in the Congo, todays Congo. And if you can survive the month, you’ll come home as grateful as you should be and you will kiss the dirt ground.

Richard Spencer and his brand of legit ethno-nationalist views are what true “alt-right” is. He’s the one who coined the term. No one in the IDW sits down with Richard Spencer (because his ideas are just not interesting and no one is interested in ethno-nationalism). In fact now that Milo has progressed further right, interacting with the ethno-nationalists, has caused the IDW to no longer sit down with Milo either. Nor is anyone in the community pushing to hear from either of them. Yet the media still labels the community as alt-right.

It’s not meant to accurately describe the community, it’s just meant to slander. And frankly anyone who fails to see this clear as day is just selectively ignorant and obviously perfectly happy mischaracterizing good people and are totally cool with supporting the billion dollar corporations who seek to amend our rights until we’re essentially living in our own social credit system like China. The IDW is the last non-conformist movement left and it’s under constant assault by people looking to strip the world of all differences. In the name of diversity. Maybe we need to check what you think diversity actually means.

1463811059412

*Rare image of the pope co opting the ok symbol to signal his white supremacy to billions of nazis*

But believe it or not, to a large mass of people, this makes a lot of sense. So what do these people have in common with the Pokemon, Harry Potter, Marilyn Manson blasphemy law enforcers? Their ignorance. None of those people really actually looked into pokemon or ever read harry potter or actually listened to what Marilyn Manson was saying. They allowed their emotions and assumptions the bias of their individual worldview to guide their judgements. In this same way, most people who buy into these cheap insults of Peterson aren’t actually familiar with any of his content. It’s no coincidence such lazy thinking leads to people actually believing that Peterson promotes ‘enforced monogamy’.

Watch Jordan Peterson explain ‘enforced monogamy’:

That’s exactly what’s going on with those who condemn people like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and Bret Weinstein. Slander is dressed up as “critique” where activist based narrative news media refer to these people as “alt-right, problematic or grifters”. Because these terms are intended to disqualify without requiring a cohesive argument to contend with the credentials behind the person espousing such ideas. When in reality it’s, as they call it, a ‘dog whistle’ to signal that these individuals and the content they represent is pure blasphemy. There’s a reason why replacing the word “alt-right” with the word “heretic” ends up meaning the same thing. Because the SJW mob is just a modern day witch hunt.

mansonwhitcoulls

Where disagreeability represents the embodiment of sin when ideology becomes worshipped as sacred. The calls to ban in 1998 were no different than the calls to ban in 2019. We are now the exact ignoramuses from our youth. And instead of engaging in honest discussion over the ideas that people like Peterson share people fall back on a misconstrued clickbait article or sound bite that allows them simply defame the man so they don’t need to contend with the ideas. But with now over 3 million copies sold around the globe, Jordan Peterson isn’t going to be losing sleep over any of it anytime soon regardless. But I sure would appreciate someone explaining to me the difference between modern day book bans and old school book burning.

peterson hit pieces

Going back to my main point, I think it was wrong to blame Marilyn Manson for Columbine, but blame they did. I think it’s also wrong to blame people like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro (who constantly call out ethno-nationalists) for what happened in Christchurch. And while I’m in a reflective mood, if I think back to what’s been going on during this culture war. I suppose it really kicked off when Pepe became officially deemed hate speech by the SPLC. In a world where text dominates human interaction it’s no surprise that memes have been used as a form of expression to convey reactions, thoughts and feelings. And sometimes when peering into that abyss, it takes us to dark places. And there could be no better example of this then that of Pepe.

I also believe that it’s worthy of noting the symbolism of the frog itself. For many cultures the frog represents transformation, change, adaptation. Like tadpole to frog. It can represent the transient nature of life itself. Often a positive sign of fortune or wealth. As an omen, it can indicate a pending disaster in the future. Pepe did exactly this. Transforming from one conceptualization to another based on the individual poster, creating an actual auction market for unique Pepe art but also valuable to each individual using the meme to articulate a reaction or feeling or identity in a way that they couldn’t with words. And possibly foreshadowing the coming culture war that would revolve around exactly these reactions, feelings and identities. RIP Pepe.

rocHPZ-dLF5g3UyD7C_LFw_Pepe+Funeral

I think the most notable next major meme evolution must be the NPC meme. Inspired by things like Trump derangement (orange man bad) and exactly the bad faith hit pieces I’m mentioning here, Memers created the NPC meme. I believe around the same time this simulation theory became popular. Where people actually believe that this world isn’t real and everything is just a simulation like the Matrix with Keanu Reeves. A conspiracy seducing even the smartest among us as Elon Musk mused over it with Joe Rogan.

The point being everyone starts looking the same and sounding the same and ideas start becoming less and less interesting when all you see everywhere around you are the same narratives being preached by the same ‘bad actors’. This is why all those who manage to break free of the narratives and see the world for what it really is, is considered “red pilled”.

NPC-header-1-640x480

Watch Jimmy Dore covering Rachel Maddow; All Russia. All the Time:

But now we are seeing a new meme emerge and it seems to be sticking. It’s a type of clown world meme where Pepe is now donning clown garb. It’s being used to convey feelings of dismissal over the hypocrisy and hyperbole people see at every angle from all sides. It may be perceived to be a way of making light of the heavy times we live in. But I think it’s actually deeper than that. It’s a product of deep nihilism where you laugh off serious things that are not jokes. It’s a way of opting out, shutting down and closing our eyes from real things that really matter.

honk honk

Watch Paul Joseph Watson discuss the clown world meme:

A guy who by all accounts disqualifies himself for presidency goes on to become president. A feminist Prime Minister boots 2 powerful women from the party caucus for a scandal HE initiated. He lies about the scandal and about both women but then threatens to sue the critical opposition for “telling lies”. A nazi shoots up a mosque and a self help book gets banned but you can still buy Mein Kampf. Police show up at the doors of those who misgender people on Twitter.

Public trust in news media is at an all time low then time magazine names the news media people of the year. It’s easy to understand why people feel the world is upside down. But the honk honk comes from a place of deeply seeded apathy. And that’s a really dangerous place for dispossessed people to be. Is this the blue-pill alternative to the red-pill? Or is this pill black?

Watch Styxhexenhammer discuss the blackpill generation:

The reason why I enjoyed Bowling for Columbine so much when I was younger was because of the interview with Manson I featured at the start of this blog. When it seemed like EVERYONE had an answer to why the columbine shooting happened, Manson was the only one to say that what HE would do was just listen to the kids, because that’s what no one else was doing. And it’s a sentiment that rings true to this day. The teen angst of the 90s society of high expectations is the same as today’s wrongthink in the post truth era.

The tools of censorship, used by conservatives in the past, are the same tools now used by the leftists. Only in today’s social media world the stakes are higher than ever before when it comes to exactly what gets censored. There is overwhelming evidence that the way to actually de-radicalize someone who’s gone too far is to allow them to feel free to speak their mind, make them feel heard and open opportunities for them to walk outside of their bubble.

When dealing with deeply rooted tribal individuals you must present them with an even greater tribe for them to identify with. Like most people with most issues, all they really need is a simple change of perspective. These are paranoid individuals. You do not want to back a paranoid individual into a corner. But people are happy to do it regardless, because revenge is more fun than justice. Honk honk.

Watch Daryl Davis speak at TEDxNaperville:

Watch Aaron Stark speak at TEDxBoulder:

Watch Theo E.J. Wilson speak at TEDxMileHigh:

Watch The Agenda with Steve Paikin on Life After Hate:

I believe, symbolically, this represents a numbness that comes from disaster fatigue. When people become overwhelmed by bad news. Similar to compassion fatigue. Where we begin to drown in our own empathy by grieving vicariously through other victims or  unfortunate situations totally detached from our own individual lives. I, myself, needed a couple of days to tune out after the Christchurch shooting. Sometimes you just need time for your heart to grieve. I think there’s something healthy about feeling grief for others’ suffering. Almost like the heart’s way of saying a little prayer for someone else. But having the awareness to identify these feelings and embrace them by providing an outlet for them is the healthy way of handling it.

Watch TEDx with Juliette Watt; Compassion Fatigue: What is it and do you have it?

I believe it’s when you try to repress such feelings is when you run the risk of burning out or even worse, lashing out. And let’s face facts, it’s the lashing out part we are all concerned about when people feel that they are at their limits and ready to burst. In my opinion I think the clown world meme represents being burnt out but the fact it is a circulating meme tells me it’s acting as an outlet so I can only hope that after a few chuckles people can return to their seats at the table for dialogue so we can continue to move forward together.

Maybe the whole Trump derangement stuff is just that, disaster fatigue without a sufficient outlet. Certainly lying about good people like Jordan Peterson isn’t going to help anyone. It’s just going to further polarize society. And it’s the polarization that’s the real threat to society and the real people and families trying to live their lives. Jordan has worked miracles in bringing meaning to people’s lives. And he’s done more to actually de-radicalize individuals than ANY mainstream media or government body anywhere.

Not to suggest that Peterson ought to be exempt from any scrutiny, of course not. And many people have taken aim at him. His debates have been a large part of how he’s risen to international fame. But when people read something from the New York Times they expect a certain level of journalistic integrity and intellectual rigor. But instead what we receive is mischaracterizations, misleading statements, slurs and literal baseless lies. It’s pretty precious that these are the same institutions who preach to us the importance of truth and accuracy. But worse yet, they are refusing to actually utilize Peterson’s growing influence to spark a real dialogue which actually could serve some good in the world. But that’s not happening because these people don’t want to make things better, they only wish to tear things down in utter contempt.

One critique of Peterson is that his world-tour lectures attract a lot of “young white men”. Well if that’s a point of contention with you then that only tells us more about you then it does about Jordan. I’ll just leave it at that. In a video critique of David Pakman he claimed, without any citation, that Jordan’s ideas around hierarchies have been ‘widely debunked’. Like really dude? If anyone hears that and thinks there’s any legitimacy in it you need to give your head a shake and start exploring outside of your bubble. Because Jordan has never claimed that hierarchies were ever HIS idea in the first place.

Watch a fan-made parody impersonation of the odd nature of the Peterson critiques. A comedic attempt to demonstrate how manipulative taking speech out of context can be:

The whole point to chapter 1 in his book: Stand up straight with your shoulders back, is to simply point out that lobsters, one of the world’s oldest creatures have operated along a social hierarchy system. This means that evolutionary trait would’ve dated back to when WE would’ve been fish. That means hierarchies are older than the existence of trees. Not hundreds of years old, billions. We see other creatures in the animal kingdom play out other hierarchical orders as well. The “stand up straight” part is to reference the evidence that suggests when we do just that, we feel more confident. Because this is a self help book, after all.

This whole point was simply to rebut the lazy notion that capitalism invented social hierarchies simply to dispossess and marginalize people. It has nothing to do with capitalism. No one is proud to see we have homeless among us. Or that others live in poverty. It’s a multi-varied social phenomenon that will not be solved by merely altering our politics. These are not otherwise PERFECTLY ‘normal’ people who are simply oppressed by the patriarchy or of capitalism. According to ScienceDaily.com roughly 50% of homeless men had at least one traumatic brain injury in their lives. And that’s just one contributing variable to consider.

The point is social hierarchies aren’t a product of politics. It’s deeper than that. But sure, you can go on calling Jordan the crazy lobster guy. He’ll continue profiting off of that by selling his lobster merch. So go ahead, ban his book. But if you think you’re hurting Peterson by doing that, you’re wrong. It’s everyone else who have reasons for buying a self help book that will be the ones to suffer. So it’s no surprise to see the clown world meme emerging from an ever more ignorant world developing around us.

Maybe if we all just wrapped out heads in Hijabs and joined in Muslim prayer that would solve all the world’s problems. This is the real problem with guilt by association. If you let the boundaries around such blanket sweeping conditions become too loose then it’s just a matter of time until you’re assigning ALL people of a group identity as guilty and tainted for the sins of a minority among them. Merely on the basis of their biological makeup. Bringing nothing but shame to otherwise completely innocent people. Not to say there isn’t a place for discussions around culture but to infer that white supremacy, ethno-nationalism and mass murder are all products of ‘white culture’ is profoundly ridiculous and just straight up racist. Not only are these sentiments shared in other areas around the world but these are very fringe minorities who subscribe to such ideologies. The western world was founded in exactly the opposite of such sentiments. Where the individual was of unique infinite value and therefore was entitled to rights and freedoms as an individual sovereign entity. But you don’t hear about that anymore

Watch the New Zealand Prime Minister wearing a Hijab:

Unless the New Zealand Prime Minister is Muslim, why would she wear a Hijab? It’s not like she was “off duty”. A Prime Minister is never “off duty”. So what message is she sending to her country or the world? Should we all convert to Islam? Are we bad in some way if we don’t at least attempt to conform to Muslim Culture? Whites are wrong? Muslims are right? The only thing weirder than how Justin Trudeau looked on his India trip would’ve been if he looked that way here in Canada. That’s no knock on Canadian-Indians but even the Indians over there were standing around him in suits like, “dude what the fuck are you wearing”.

Aside from this breaking the PC narrative around cultural appropriation, how is this not an attempt to politicize a tragedy? Maybe she had good intentions but she’s ignorant if that’s all it was. If this was one of the hundreds of Islamist attacks that go on every year killing people all around the world, would it ever be acceptable to hold all Muslims culpable for the actions of Islamists? This is not a false equivalency argument either. Islamists are a real threat. Just like white supremacists are a real threat. If what we want to work towards is true equal rights and opportunities for all people then we must hold everyone to the same ideal standards.

There is no harm in calling out inconsistencies anywhere they may occur. Because the funny thing about ‘the ideal’ is it judges us. To differentiate others based on ignorance is a form of prejudice. Assumptions based on preconceived notions. Usually rooted from anecdotal evidence rather than the scientific method. But repentance for actions that are not our own can also be based in prejudicial ignorance. Both serve to develop stigmas against groups of people rather than holding individuals accountable as the deviants they are. Don’t get me wrong, we should all seek repentance but forgiveness can only be granted to us as individuals over our individual actions. No amount of finger pointing ever granted anyone righteousness. Prejudice is prejudice is prejudice.

Jordan Peterson has nothing to do with nazis nor does he radicalize anyone. And as long as we keep playing this stupid game of pin the tail on the alt-right we actually end up doing what the Christchurch shooter actually wanted from what he reveals to us in his own manifesto. Further polarization. Because what happened in Christchurch wasn’t the end game for this man. It was a recruiting tactic for his cause. And he was smart enough to understand that if you can’t recruit by seducing people into your tribe with your ideology then you just need the other tribes to exile their own.

And when those people have nowhere else to turn, the ideas won’t matter anymore. And the media is doing a fine job carrying out this man’s wishes. Which, at best, is a disgrace to the families and community who suffered at the hands of this monster. And, at worst, is nothing more than an attempt to ignite an actual civil war in the western world. Rule #6: set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world.

Watch Jordan Peterson in his own words:

 

“Yes, I’m reckless and sometime express no concern for my own well being, and I express a misanthropic view of the world, but to have an opinion, you can’t be a nihilist.”

– Marilyn Manson

Jordan Peele Finds Himself in The Sunken Place

Jordan Peele

Watch Philip Defranco discuss the controversy around Jordan Peele’s comments:

Today Jordan Peele found himself in the sunken place of the culture war when he advocated for white genocide. Or so you would think given the reaction of some people online. But such is the state of our polarized, outrage addicted culture. The quote that the clickbait journalism ran with to illicit the backlash was, “I don’t see myself casting a white dude as the lead in my movie.” And with that the culture war exploded in outrage as all the SJWs, Nazis, shitlords and Otherkin converged on their local parks and engaged in a Ron Burgundy style brawl that was so intense that I’m sure we’ll see some popular figures in the new Smash Bros DLC.

Ok, it wasn’t THAT bad. And in fact Jordan Peele went on to say:

“Not that I don’t like white dudes but I’ve seen that movie. It really is one of the best, greatest pieces of this story, is the feeling like we are in this time – a renaissance has happened and proved the myths about representation in the industry are false. The way I look at it, I get to cast black people in my movies. I feel fortunate to be in this position where I can say to Universal, ‘I want to make a $20 million horror movie with a black family.’ And they say yes.”

But in the cesspool that is the twitterverse we, of course, saw a lot of people take the bait. Of course the point of this tabloid was to incite outrage and draw attention and benefit from all the clicks and views propped up by everyone on all sides road raging about it online. Because like the ex girlfriend who stalked me, negative attention is still attention. But we all apparently have yet to truly learn that. And one such poor bastard happened to be someone whose content I enjoy, Jeremy over at TheQuartering (on twitter, youtube, minds, facebook). Jeremy tweeted out the article with the comment, “Imagine saying…’I don’t see myself hiring white dudes’ and being applauded. These times…”

The Quartering

Watch TheQuartering explain the situation around his tweet:

This picked up attention from others online and made its way onto the Philip Defranco show who reported on the controversy. Now I’m just not going to touch on the ouroboros nature of these incidents where journalists produce clickbait, then content creators expose clickbait, therefore effectively taking the bait. Then indie dude, like myself, with nothing better to do shares said click baited click bait to all his friends which only produces further clickbait. BUT there’s a real point to be made through all this noise. Jeremy isn’t wrong. But he’s also not right. And most of us are usually in this boat.

To simply dismiss legitimate claims of racism is only making the situation worse. There is no such thing as ‘reverse racism’ or the ‘false equivalency’ of comparing blacks and whites to black and white situations. But the real question here is was there any real racism that took place here? On the surface it sure looks that way. And let’s not kid ourselves, you replace the word “white” with the word “black” or “latino” or “asian” or whatever and of course it would be a morally wrong thing to say. So if the goal here is equality then we should be striving for nothing less. But is this a racist incident?

I’m about to sound like I work for Patreon but I really think these things need to be observed through a case-by-case basis. And in order to understand the words we really must understand the person. Look at what happened to Kevin Hart. He was fired from hosting the Oscars after online outrage over a tweet from 2011 which read, “Yo if my son comes home & try’s 2 play with my daughters doll house I’m going 2 break it over his head & say n my voice ‘stop that’s gay.'”

Watch Ellen sit down with Kevin Hart to help re-hire him as Oscars Host:

Despite the fact this is something Kevin Hart has already addressed in the past, according to him, this didn’t stop the Oscars from dropping him faster than they hired him. Like Hart said himself in a snapchat reaction to the news, do people actually think that someone can’t grow and learn in 8 years? Do we all just start to view all of history through the critical lense of today’s cultural context? And where exactly are these flawless people? These pure, innocent people, who’ve never made a mistake, that these trolls seem to believe exist. Guess what? They don’t exist. We’re all horrible, flawed monsters navigating our way through the fog of life, just coasting along to whatever solid ground we can find.

Kevin Hart watched a life-long dream crumble beneath him. Even after Ellen sat him down and attempted to get him to fight for his job, the damage had already been done. Not the defamation against him but the damage to his dream. The fun, glamour and social relevance that this ceremony represented to him throughout his life, which he put on a pedestal, all came crashing down with their weak willed, bad faith, reactionary abandon of principal at the first sight of risk.

Oh, and the online trolls then came for Ellen, attempting to reduce probably one of the biggest LGBT icons to “just another white woman”. I’m sorry, Ellen is one of the kindest, sweetest, most positive people we have out there so to try and diminish the reputation and presence she’s earned, only reveals your own ill intentions. Ellen didn’t emerge in a time when your ethnicity and sexual orientation were celebrated in society like they are today. She was the rose that bloomed from the crack in the hard concrete when you lost you’re sitcom for your sexual identity.

But to be real, that’s really all she is to the intersectional community. Just another white woman. How dare she not stay in her lane. These social justice warriors are sadists. Sadists who are addicted to the dopamine hit that a good lynching provides. To me, they’re just as dangerous as these white supremacists advocating for a civil war. So don’t kid yourself, there’s no difference between antifa and those antifa target.

Watch SJW mob surround Tucker Carlson’s home where his wife hid in their closet:

The only thing more pathetic than the boy who cried wolf is the fool who listened to the false claim. And after everything the Oscars represented to Kevin, for them to sell him out so quick to appease a minority, faux-outrage mob of trolls reveals that, to them, he’s really nothing more than their dancing monkey to use for ratings. And once you see it, you cannot unsee it. Good on Hart for not giving THEM a second chance. They don’t deserve him. And so ever further the Oscars spiral into irrelevancy. Because they bent the knee to the social justice mob who aims to run black men out of town in the name of progress. When you don’t stand for anything you’ll fall for everything.

My point about Jordan Peele is just that, context. I wouldn’t describe myself as a Jordan Peele “fan” but I’ve always enjoyed his work. And When I watched “Get Out” I didn’t see the persecution of white people despite the fact literally every white actor in the film was a villain. I empathized with the main lead, believe it or not, despite the fact our skin looks different. Go figure!

But I know I was able to do so because the story and the actors enabled that relationship. When I was presented with the “black boyfriend” narrative it didn’t come across as political propaganda. It felt like cultural relevance. Even if it was a little political. But I was happy to support it given that if this was political, this is how you do it right. Because the concept, the acting, the writing was good. It was something the entire audience could unite under.

Watch Jordan Peele discuss how white audiences reacted to “Get Out”:

The issues he’s talking about are real issues. It’s always been cringey when studios feel the need to cast white actors in place of other ethnic roles like when they cast Christian Bale as an Egyptian. I think there is a real conversation to be had around visible representation in movies and shows. BUT THAT BEING SAID. So much of our content has been used as social justice propaganda that I completely understand people who may be suffering from political fatigue and just groan at every mention of “empowerment” and “dominance position” this versus “power group” that, yadda, yadda, yadda.

There just seems to be this odd idea that the only way to empower someone is to tear someone else down. Like the only way for a white person to be an “ally” is to just SHUT THE FUCK UP. Wow, great. For me, to be honest, I take more offense to the part where he says, “I’ve seen that movie before”. I totally understand push back against that. What is he even saying? Everything Hitchcock made, everything Kubrick made, star wars, lord of the rings, star trek, etc etc etc are all just the same movie because they were made and starred by whites? I have a feeling that Jordan, himself, was really caught off guard with this interview and was baited into saying some stupid crap. Otherwise he needs to invest in a publicist before he opens his mouth.

Be honest with yourself, when you go to a movie do you think to yourself, “I can’t wait to see all the statistically accurate visible representation according to the demographics of the region where the movie takes place,” or do you think to yourself “this movie looks interesting, I want to see what happens,”?

Racism is racism. Period. Whether you’re white or black or whatever. Period. And like Jordan said himself, the reality is he can now turn to a studio and say “I wanna make a movie about black people” and receive funding. That’s progress. So to keep moving forward let’s focus on how to unite audiences, not divide them. The less risk to a studio the less doubt they can have to fund these sorts of projects. And take risks on new up and comers like Jordan Peele.

I just don’t understand why Peele felt he had to even say this at all. He would have meant the same thing by just saying, “I hire who I feel best fits into my story,” and just left it at that. I feel like he was probably baited into weighing in about identity politics and just fell for the bait. Probably an example of someone who surrounds themselves with yes people and gets so caught up with confirmation bias they are lulled into a false sense of security by the wrong people.

But that being said, Jordan Peele is now a Hollywood elite, regardless his roots and so if what we want is true equality then he needs to take the public reaction for whatever it is and deal with it. This is the nature of the Hollywood beast. And he’s a big boy, he can take responsibility for the things he says. I’m sure he’s not losing sleep over what guys like me think. Nor am I losing sleep over shit people like him say. Everything else from everyone else is just playing the outrage game. On both ends of the spectrum. I didn’t really care for “US” but I’m still looking forward to his next one.

It’s easy to see politics everywhere you look these days. But I do think these situations must be evaluated as a case by case basis otherwise we just paint with broad brushes and end up dehumanizing people in the same way as the SJW. We can’t rob people of their individual sovereignty based on surface level evidence that we use to act as judge, jury and executioner. We’re all entitled to our opinions but we also all need to be mindful of when dialogue devolves into rhetoric. Because we’re ALL guilty of that.

Sometimes if we forget to take proper care of ourselves and reconnect with the outside world then our oversaturated minds can easily regurgitate these narratives as we project this rhetoric overtop of otherwise innocent situations. Not that these comments are innocent but I do not believe Jordan Peele is guilty of any wrongdoing.

Dear outrage mobs, this is how you look:

 

“I’ll say this: The scariest monster in the world is human beings and what we are capable of, especially when we get together.”

– Jordan Peele

At least you got a Mueller report

crime scene do not cross signage
Photo by kat wilcox on Pexels.com

We’ve been hearing a lot about the Mueller investigation in the news lately. Devastating a lot of democrats to find out that there will be no further indictments into the Russian collusion probe. I can’t help but sit back, looking at the state of affairs here in Canadian Politics in juxtaposition to our neighbours south of the border screeching in satisfaction and think to myself, “at least you’re lucky enough to have the checks and balances in place to even have the investigation take place at all.”

Here in Canada, apparently when a majority government doesn’t want the public to know about something they can just use and abuse their majority power to shut down all attempts to bring about an investigation. And it begs the question, does our majority government have too much power? What exactly is going on with the SNC-Lavalin situation? Is it a scandal? Is it out right corruption? Bribery? A violation of ethics? And apparently according to most media, why should any of us really even care? Well, let’s review what’s been going on and attempt to ask some of those tough questions.

The first breaking article from the Globe and Mail, “PMO pressed Wilson-Raybould to abandon prosecution of SNC-Lavalin; Trudeau denies his office ‘directed’ her,” was published on Feburary 7th. It’s now March 27th and we still have yet to hear the whole story from Jody Wilson-Raybould who was the initial whistleblower to the SNC-Lavalin controversy. At first the justice committee didn’t even feel the need to hear any testimony at all. They were satisfied with Trudeau’s initial rejection of the Globe and Mail article.

But as questions mounted and most mainstream outlets and opposition the Justice committee finally granted Wilson-Raybould the opportunity to sit before the Justice Committee and testify. Wilson-Raybould would not share her story with the media because she was concerned that due to solicitor-client privilege she could be disbarred if she were to disclose any details regarding the situation around the SNC-Lavalin deferred prosecution agreement. Given that her role at the time was as Attorney General of Canada.

Watch what is a deferred prosecution agreement and what does it mean?:

What does the Attorney General of Canada do?

Also known as “MOJAG” the Attorney General litigates on behalf of the Crown and serves as the chief legal advisor to the Government of Canada. Most prosecution functions of the Attorney General have been assigned to the Public Prosection Service of Canada. The Salary of the Attorney General is $255,300 per year (2017).

Finally on Feb 27 Jody Wilson-Raybould delivered a 37 minute testimony and then answered questions for about 2 hours afterwards. Wilson-Raybould tells the justice committee she came under “consistent and sustained” pressure — including veiled threats — from the PMO, the Privy Council Office and Morneau’s office to halt the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

What were the key details of her testimony?

  • Wilson-Raybould was asked by the PMO to overrule the prosecution decision not to grant a DPA to SNC-Lavalin because of Canadian jobs and that there was an election coming up. Wilson-Raybould turned down the requests citing political reasons as an inappropriate reason to overrule the prosecution.
  • The “consistent and sustained pressure” she received from the PMO to overrule the the prosecutor’s decision went on over the course of 4 months by multiple MPs (and the PCO Michael Wernick who is supposed to be non-partisan)
  • Trudeau’s principal secretary, best friend, Gerald Butts (whom Trudeau has asserted speaks for him) told Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff at one point that there “is no solution here that doesn’t involve some interference.Gerald Butts then resigned on Feb 18 after the Globe and Mail article.
  • Then Trudeau’s Chief of staff Katie Telford tells Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff, “we don’t want to debate legalities any more.
  • After the cabinet shuffle the then deputy minister was given directives that the new Attorney General David Lametti was holding conversations with the PM emphasizing the priority of the SNC-Lavalin case.
  • During questions Wilson-Raybould was asked if she thought the pressure was illegal and she said, “no”. (important to note that the only thing she claimed was not illegal was whether or not SHE THOUGHT the PRESSURE PUT ON HER was ILLEGAL and that’s very important to remember given how frequently Liberals are now citing this question as a total exoneration of their conduct and justification to shut down the SNC-Lavalin probe.)

 

Long story short, After Wilson-Raybould determined that she would not grant SNC-Lavalin a DPA there was a cabinet shuffle where she was removed as attorney general and appointed the position of Minister of Veterans Affairs. This demotion was seen as a direct punishment for not giving in to the PMO insistence of granting SNC-Lavalin a DPA. This was at the heart of the interference allegation, since it was seen that the newly appointed Attorney General would now seek to pursue the DPA for SNC-Lavalin, the issue Wilson-Raybould has already made her decision on. The then deputy minister was given directives that the new Attorney General David Lametti was holding conversations with the PM emphasizing the priority of the SNC-Lavalin case.

The only problem with her testimony was that Trudeau had not completely lifted solicitor-client privilege and so there were holes in Wilson-Raybould’s testimony of details she could not disclose. Details like specifically what was discussed in closed door and official meetings. Essentially the meat and potatoes to her whistle blowing. Trudeau has slightly lifted privilege for her testimony which, as he continuously references, was unprecedented. The new Liberal buzzword. And the fact alone that this was unprecedented he now cites as his excuse to why he isn’t fully lifting solicitor-client privilege so Wilson-Raybould can fill in the gaps of her testimony. To justify shutting down the SNC probe over the simple reason for it being unprecedented is literally a political way of saying, “well this has never happened before so there’s no reason to start doing it now.” These are unprecedented times with unprecedented conduct so we need to hear the whole truth on whether this is a scandal or not.

Since Wilson-Raybould’s testimony we have heard from the PCO Michael Wernick twice and Gerald Butts who have all out-right refuted Wilson-Raybould’s claims. Trudeau himself has had every opportunity during every single development to comment to the situation himself. But Jody Wilson-Raybould has never been given the opportunity to return to rebuttal all the allegations now against her from all the other testimony nor has privilege been lifted for her to tell us the whole truth. And now the Liberals have shut down the entire probe and unless the opposition or someone can bring about new information then that’s where this whole thing dies. And that’s not right, this is an abuse of power over something that’s even attracted the attention of the OECD over suspicion of bribery.

The following is my paraphrasing of the Liberal narrative (with citations) since the globe and mail story broke to serve as a cliffnotes summary of the entire Jody Wilson-Raybould/SNC-Lavalin scandal:

  1. (Trudeau reacts to Globe and Mail article) Trudeau: there’s nothing to this and the globe and mail article is fake news. We didn’t direct anyone to do anything. wilson-raybould’s account of events are being misconstrued and misinterpreted and her seat on cabinet should speak for itself. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo, get rekt opposition. LOL.
  2. (Wilson-Raybould resigns from cabinet and lawyers up) Trudeau: well I’m very sad to see her go but I’m very confused and if she had any concerns then she should’ve brought this to my attention, which she never did. This whole thing is just really one big misunderstand.
  3. (then Butts resigns) Trudeau: Well it’s the respect Butts has for our institutions is the reason why he’s stepping down because he felt it would be best and he continues to have my full confidence and friendship and gratitude. It wasn’t Butts who failed us, it was all of us who fail him. And by us I really mean you. All of you.
  4. (After Wilson-Raybould’s testimony) Trudeau: Well this has been a tough last few weeks because of a few minor disagreements. But first let’s talk about all this great stuff we’re doing that’s really more important. like progressive reforms over criminal justice. Jody spoke today and she really was great and fantastic and her truth is just so beautiful. but I already told you, we didn’t direct shit. So we just agree to disagree. Her decision about SNC-Lavalin was hers alone to make, not mine. I’m no lawyer. So I disagree with everything she said. But hey, we got ourselves an ethic commissioner on the payroll, I’m more than happy to let this dude with no legal authority to look into whether or not anything criminal went down. More than happy to let that guy and that guy alone to look into this.
  5. (At a press conference to discuss a Lunar mission) Trudeau: There was a time when people used the stars to navigate, the sun to tell time and that’s just cool man. You see I brought my daughter with me? I’m doing my part guys! Girls in STEM! We all know science is better when we embrace feminism. Let’s talk science! Can’t we all just get along!? STOP ASKING ME QUESTIONS ABOUT SNC-LAVALIN!!!
  6. (then Jane Philpott resigns over lack of confidence in Trudeau) Trudeau: Well Philpott did great work and we appreciate it and will continue it. But this is just an example to how we embrace diverse opinions and points of view and Ms. Philpott is entitled to her truth and I’m entitled to my truth and we’ll continue to listen with open ears and open hearts and oh and by the way, did I mention climate change is really important?
  7. Wernick’s testimony: Jesus H double hockey sticks guys, there is just SO much partisanship going on here right now with all these questions that I really think come the election, we’re gonna see some assassination attempts. Everyone is just bullying us and that’s not fair! I didn’t do nothing wrong!
  8. Butt’s testimony: Jody’s fantastic and credible and did I mention fantastic? And she has her truth and in her truth she experiences things very truthfully. However in MY truth she’s a lying fucking bitch. And I’m also entitled to my truth.
  9. Trudeau: Well you know it’s my job to protect jobs so if protecting jobs makes me wrong, I don’t wanna be right, baby. That all just comes with the pressure of the job and I guess the pressure of such burdens was too much for Jody. She could’ve come to me but she didn’t and boy-o-boy I wish she had. Dialogue is crucial and it’s clear this was a case of an erosion of trust. My daddy and me have different governing styles but one thing we both really cared about was the principle of justice. Daddy always wanted a just society and those are the values he raised me on. So justice is something I’m really passionate the most about out of every one of us. Speaking of justice, did I mention that reconciliation and justice for our first nations people is what really matters here? Let’s talk about that.
  10. Wernick’s 2nd testimony: I HAVE SUBMITTED ALL MY FACEBOOK COMMENTS BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SO MEAN TO ME AND I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW ABOUT IT! SOCIAL MEDIA IS NOT A PLACE FOR NEGATIVE COMMENTS! HOW DARE YOU OR ANYONE ACCUSE ME OF PARTISANSHIP! I’VE BEEN A CAREER POLITICIAN SINCE PAUL MARTIN. I HAVE MADE GOOD FRIENDS IN MY CAREER, AND SOME OF THOSE FRIENDS NOW WORK AT SNC-LAVALIN AND HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO MY OFFICE WITH MY DIRECT EXTENSION TO REACH ME PERSONALLY AT ANY TIME! THEY EVEN INVITE ME TO ALL THEIR OFFICE GET TOGETHERS! WE’RE BASICALLY FAMILY! THEY MIGHT AS WELL JUST PUT ME ON THEIR PAYROLL!!! *oppositions’ jaws drop to the floor*
  11. (days later Wernick declares his retirement and effectively resigns from office) Wernick: YEAH WELL THE CONSERVATIVES ACCUSE ME OF NOT LIKING THEM, WELL GUESS WHAT I DON’T LIKE THEM EITHER! HOW DARE THEY ACCUSE ME OF PARTISANSHIP! THOSE DIRTY FUCKING CONSERVATIVE NEANDERTHALS!!!
  12. *Opposition tables an emergency meeting to call Wilson-Raybould back before the committee to speak with full solicitor-client privilege lifted* *Liberals use their majority power to immediately end the meeting before anyone can take a vote on the matter and then use their majority to finally end the SNC-Lavalin probe before presenting the new federal budget to the house and for the media to now report on the budget rather than SNC-Lavalin* Opposition:COVER UP!
  13. *Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes resigns the Liberal party and declares she will be running as an independent in the next election and also alleges mistreatment and hostility from the PM* Trudeau: Look, we’ve been over this. Her truth, my truth, blah blah blah, whatever she was a fucking bitch anyway.
  14. Liberals/Trudeau: Guys, look at our budget, see what I did there? Money for millenials, money for the seniors, money for all! I’m giving you all the money we’ve got! Actually, technically, I’m taking money from your children and grandchildren and giving that to you as well. Name 1 person you know who’s more generous than me. THAT’S RIGHT! YOU CAN’T! What’s that? Who? Who? Wilson-Raybould? Oh, shit, I remember her! Yeah, see, the thing is we COULD get more testimony and we COULD lift solicitor-client privilege BUT, BUT, BUUUUUUT, we’ve heard from so many different people and there’s just so much information out there and I mean, how many times do we expect Jody to talk afterall? I mean, I could lift privilege but that’s never been done before so… why would we do that now? She could always stand up in the house and talk for 60 seconds without privilege lifted. Man, oh, man, I really spoil her. She’s spoiled.
  15. Jane Philpott: ‘There’s much more to the story that needs to be told’

 

 

Why does any of this matter?

 

This situation IS important to follow and to know about. And it does make us ask a lot of tough questions:


1. Can the attorney general operate as a partisan MP?

Does the attorney general need to be completely detached from the government? If the government that ran on ethics and reform and transparency and progressivism in such a big way STILL allows corporate lobbyists to gain direct access to the PMO then we have a real problem. And so we need to figure out how to prevent future interference from happening. Simply replacing the government with another party won’t solve this problem. If interference CAN happen it inevitably WILL happen. That being said, I do believe that SNC-Lavalin has every right to donate to a party and lobby that party for favours. But I expect that party to operate within the boundaries of the law, not just create loop holes to create a system of rewarding those within the party’s inner circle and punish those who aren’t. and sure, there’s a lot of that that goes on at all levels of government but apathy is not the correct response to this behaviour. This is the kind of thing you’d expect to see in Russia with Putin. Not Canada.

We need reforms. and I believe the DPA remediation agreements reeks of just this. There may be a role for DPA if it prevents corporations from fucking around with their taxes but if it protects companies like SNC-Lavalin then it’s not right. BUT a court ruled that SNC wouldn’t qualify for a remediation agreement. So maybe the DPA itself isn’t the problem here. It’s a complex issue that’s going on here and I think the real issue now is that the cover up is becoming worse than the crime. We won’t get a chance to even find out what exactly went wrong here unless we can get the whole truth from Jody Wilson-Raybould. A person who I think, honestly, is a modern day hero for not letting partisanship interfere with her role as attorney general.

 

2. When is it appropriate to impose public/legal investigations on a majority government? (And how do we prevent opposition from abusing this process?)

With the Liberal majority government simply shutting down the scandal probe, there really are no sufficient checks and balances in place to hold the government accountable in moments of conflict like this. The only real option the opposition has here is to put forth a motion of non-confidence but I don’t even really know if anything would come of that and without any third party investigations it seems way overkill over something we are in the dark about. First Wilson-Raybould comes forth as a whistle blower. And the Liberals basically treated her as a rabble rouser, a fringe conspiracy theorist and there was nothing to see here. and if it wasn’t for the opposition and great work from almost exclusively the Globe and Mail, they would’ve just swept this under the rug.

Then Butts resigned, signalling just how big of a deal this could be if he was going to be a fall guy. considering how close he worked with Trudeau and how firmly Trudeau affirmed that Butts speaks for him. Then Jane Philpott resigned. Not some backbencher MP, the head of the treasury. directly denouncing the government and their handling of the situation. everything but out right cries of corruption. and we’re not supposed to listen to that? Everything that’s developed since Wilson-Raybould’s testimony has only further validated everything she’s come forth with and contradicted everything Trudeau has said. Except for the testimony of individuals who have resigned over the issue.

but after everything that has transpired Trudeau still refuses to lift privilege to allow Wilson-Raybould to give us the whole truth of what is at the heart of the reason for her whistle blowing. And when the opposition tried to table an emergency meeting to call for a second testimony they used their majority power to adjourn the meeting immediately. Just simply shut down all debate over the subject. If this is not a direct act of contempt for the operations of a democratic operations of our parliament then I do not know what is. And as easy as it is to dismiss howling conservatives proclaiming “cover up! cover up!” I just don’t see how at this stage in the game these actions would be defined any other way. I do believe that we are witnessing a direct attempt to cover something up that the majority government is using their power to keep in the dark. and although Wilson-Raybould said no one has broken the law, that doesn’t mean ethics violations are criminal acts and it’s the severity of the ethical violation that is the very reason why the OECD has come out stating it is concerned about this government’s actions. And if they suspect bribery then how the hell do we not demand answers?

 

3. What do Liberal voters do now with their vote?

If this liberal government is guilty of corruption, let’s just say, then what do liberal voters do come election time? This is why I wanted vote reform. I don’t know what that reform would look like. It’s hard. but majority of us vote against parties rather than for them. That’s what I’ll be doing in election time. I believe this government has broken most of it’s promises and crossed too many ethical lines and I think this government has polarized this country more than it’s united us. So I will be voting conservative to bring down the Liberal government. And then maybe in another 4 years I’ll find myself voting Liberal to bring down that Conservative government, assuming they win. Even if they don’t, at least to hopefully reduce them to a minority government to limit the powers they clearly have no problem abusing.

As much as Trudeau wants to label the conservative government as like the ghost of stephen harper, it really is a renewed party with fresh faces. The party fails an election and they hold new leadership races and others step down to make way for new candidates. And some of those new faces are really remarkable people who were clearly born to do this. Yes, they operate within the same conservative governing philosophy but this is as close to a new party as we get. The liberal party transformed several times before they finally took government. People forget that it was the NDP who were official opposition before the last election. And I think it’s perfectly fair that if a party fails to meet their major promises or crosses an ethical line that people choose to vote them out of power. And if that means trying out a reformed conservative party then so be it. If it means voting for the first time for the NDP, so be it. It sends a clear message to Liberals that, “no we are not happy with the direction you’ve gone. go back to the drawing board and bring something new to the table.” and that may very well lead to a stronger, better party. OR we see that the reformed conservative party has actually done a bang up job and we decide to grant them another 4 years to keep it up. Or NDP. We are the ultimate deciders when it comes to politicians term limits.

But that’s also part of the problem with the way we vote. I’m not actually voting against a party or for a party even though that’s the way my vote functions. I’m actually just voting on a local representative to be my MP. even though I’ll likely never meet them or have a conversation or any interaction with them. Or I may really like my MP and insist on voting for them, even if I hate the party leader and caucus members. But am I now meant to punish the MP I like best and vote for my second choice or third choice MP to be able to have my vote act as protest to the leader and caucus I oppose? Do I vote against my philosophical values and preferred governing style to vote against the actions of the party philosophically and governing style-wise I align with so I can punish their reprehensible behaviour? You can’t vote for the devil you know without then voting for the devil.

And I really believe we all do better when we are more focussed on our local municipalities than we are focussed on the country as a whole. I may be pro-choice without a religious upbringing but why should I care what a pro-life bible thumper in alberta thinks? That doesn’t affect my life or my community. So why should my vote impact alberta? why should alberta’s vote impact me? again, I don’t have the answers to these things but this is a big question that needs to be asked because it’s a really relevant one that affects us all.

Politicians and most of the commentators really aren’t asking these questions and having these conversations. To the media, this is all just a big game as if election time is just a new season of game of thrones. Politics actually isn’t sports. and to treat it so flippantly is to just to avoid actually trying to improve the country. Media has a responsibility to do more than merely react to news, they are supposed to be facilitating the debate around it so we can move forward together. not stand stagnant and indifferent and watch everything deteriorate around us. But I say let’s not respond to these things with apathy, let’s do our best to care and to value our vote as we value our own existence and our voices and roles in society to make it function and thrive. So however you vote, make sure you believe in it.

 

 

“Governments don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. That is against their interests. They want obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept it.”
– George Carlin

The Language of the Culture War

blur book close up data
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Language is power. In the attempt to make reprehensible language more palatable both the extremes of the far-left and far-right have utilized a modified terminology which acts as a cocktail of existing words being twisted into new words to appear more credible at their faux sophistication but also to communicate to a specific audience while leaving the rest of us, who may object to said language, in the fog. The far-right language tends to be more blatant with it’s offense whereas the far-left is more likely to hide concepts behind a frankenstein of “isms” and qualifying prefaces.

My intention here is to help you become more aware of the coded language others may use to manipulate you. If you know someone who engages with a lot of these types of language then this COULD be an indicator that they are becoming ideologically possessed. Good books for them to read to de-radicalize them would be 12 rules for life by Jordan Peterson, Righteous Minds by Jonathan Haidt and Political Tribes by Amy Chua. If they’re not too far gone, these may be books to help pull them away from the cliffs edge.

 

 

4chan:

Ok. I feel the need to start here, with this. 4chan has just become such a central point to the culture war that I think anyone who wants the full context to what’s been going on needs to understand 4chan. Most journalists will simply refer to 4chan as the breeding ground of hate. But there’s a lot to this. And people tend to forget what the internet was like before 2016. Meaning people really only started paying attention after Trump won the election. Launching this deranged obsession with censoring and banning everything distasteful.

As much as I’d like to blame Trump for everything I think the real issue here is social media. Facebook and Twitter and these major companies have essentially served to pool EVERYONE in to the same platform where we are all confront with each other at the same time and if it’s anything I’ve learned from the internet growing up is that there’s a reason we form cleeks. Because there certainly are some communities that are just incompatible with other communities. And there’s something liberating in having your own corner of the internet to flee to from the stress of daily life.

And in a world wherever everything you say and do is recorded and saved to a cloud by your smart watch, your online profile, your chat forums, And there’s nothing wrong with that. If we ALL got along and conformed to one centralized community I honestly think we would lose the colour and flavour in the world. Not that I’m trying to defend or apologize for the most deplorable among us but these are not normal people. Don’t fool yourself. This isn’t really a conversation about hate and bigotry. It’s not an “us” vs “Them”. There’s just us. And the real conversation is about mental health. I’d also argue we would lose the ability to innovate as we would all align to the same conventional thinking and doing. Even if we managed to conform to one single entity it would just be a matter of time until a renaissance emerged. Because we are individuals first with individual needs and desires.

I think for one to truly understand 4chan you must first understand sites like newgrounds. See the thing is, the internet has always been a flaming asshole of trolls and shenanigans. If anything it’s only gotten better. But today thanks to social media it’s in our face, forcing us to look at it 24/7 so it’s created the illusion that it’s worse:

Watch the history of newgrounds:

Watch the history of 4chan:

Watch the history of 4chan Boards:

Watch Christopher “Moot” Pool deliver a 2010 TED talk about 4chan:

Watch the Tumblr-4chan wars:

Watch the Triggering of Shia Labeouf; he will not divide us:

Watch Top 10 4chan pranks:

Watch Top 5 scariest 4chan posts:

Top 15 Mysteries solved by 4chan:

Watch Documentary How Anonymous hackers changed the world:

 

Gamergate:

The Gamergate controversy stemmed from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate. The controversy centered on issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture. Gamergate is used as a blanket term for the controversy as well as for the harassment campaign and actions of those participating in it.

Beginning in August 2014, a harassment campaign targeted several women in the video game industry; notably game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, as well as feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian. After Eron Gjoni, Quinn’s former boyfriend, wrote a disparaging blog post about her, #gamergate hashtag users falsely accused Quinn of an unethical relationship with journalist Nathan Grayson. Harassment campaigns against Quinn and others included doxing, threats of rape, and death threats.

Gamergate proponents (“Gamergaters”) have stated that they were a movement, but had no official leaders or manifesto. Gamergate supporters organized anonymously or pseudonymously on online platforms such as 4chanInternet Relay ChatTwitter, and Reddit. Statements claiming to represent Gamergate have been inconsistent, making it difficult for commentators to identify goals and motives. Gamergate supporters said there was unethical collusion between the press and feminists, progressives, and social critics. These concerns have been dismissed by commentators as trivial, conspiracy theories, groundless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics. As a result, Gamergate has often been defined by the harassment its supporters engaged in. Gamergate supporters have frequently responded to this by denying that the harassment took place or by falsely claiming that it was manufactured by the victims.

The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over cultural diversification, artistic recognition, and social criticism in video games, and over the social identity of gamers. Many supporters of Gamergate oppose what they view as the increasing influence of feminism on video game culture; as a result, Gamergate is often viewed as a right-wing backlash against progressivism. Industry responses to the harassment campaign have focused on ways to minimise harm and prevent similar events. Gamergate has led figures both inside and outside the industry to focus on methods of addressing online harassment.

Watch PSA Sitch explain the gamergate controversy:

 

👌🏻 The “OK” hand sign:

Started as a trolling prank on 4chan to trick media into believing this symbol was a nod to white supremacy. The idea being the fingers form a ‘W’ and the hole between the fingers and forearm form a ‘P’, referencing the words “White Power”. Since this is a common symbol everyone from basketball players to chefs to almost everyone else uses, the joke is everything is a white supremacy conspiracy. The media, predictably, ate it up and now those on the left regard the symbol as a modern day nazi salute. The best most recent example would probably be Cathy Griffin referencing the Covington kids on twitter. The prank was so successful that many now use the symbol in memes and in photobombing so much that the symbol has lost it’s irony.

Watch Tim Pool cover Sweden government acknowledging 4chan memes as hate symbols:

Watch Tim Pool cover hate symbols derived from 4chan:

 

Milk:

Another 4chan prank which has made it’s way on the Swedish government list of hate symbols. Widely received by media around the world that people are using milk to celebrate visible whiteness and white supremacy.

 

Make America Great Again:

The MAGA hat has become so polarizing that to show such open support for Donald Trump in such a public way is, to the left, a symbol that advocates for intolerance and bigotry. The belief is when Trump says “make America great again” he’s actually saying that minorities and progressivism has made America weak and in order to make it ‘great again’ we must amend equal rights initiatives and disproportionately privilege ‘white men’ over everyone else. Even if what Trump is actually means bringing back jobs to the lower and middle class and improving the economy. This is how it is widely received despite how Trump explains it. It’s more than likely, given how often Trump has made reference to Ronald Reagan that he has taken a note from his 1980 campaign slogan “let’s make america great again”. It’s important to note that Reagan was able to appeal to working class democratic voters and in many ways this is also a Trump tactic.

Let's_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg

Today it’s like holding a sign at a homosexual wedding which reads “God hates fagots”. It says immigrants are inherently evil and unwelcome. It says women and minorities do not deserve equal rights to white men. Because this is such an egregious offense, the majority of those who wear it often do so as a method of trolling those triggered by it. But in the context of wearing it at political events or rallies, it’s simply a form of solidarity to support Donald Trump and the policies he’s initiated since taking presidency. Such as support for the wall, moving the American embassy to Jerusalem and Trump’s support for free speech, etc. However to the left, wearing a MAGA hat is the equivalent to waving a Nazi flag and, to an extremely small minority, some do wear it as such.

 

🐸 Pepe:

this is the emoji form of Pepe the frog. This is such a loaded topic that I really feel a mini 10 minute doc video will be a better way to explain this one:

 

((())) Triple parentheses (also (((echoes))) or coincidence markers): 

used to highlight those of Jewish or partial Jewish ancestry, as such: (((NAME))). Users of triple parentheses allege that triple parentheses highlight how much control Jews have over the world, which bears close resemblance to the “International Jewish Conspiracy” conspiracy theory. (Or: It’s a convenient way to poison the well by smearing someone or something as Jewish, in a racist appeal to identity.) Nazi blog The Right Stuff calls these cases “coincidences” in which “Jewish surnames echo throughout history”.[8] The hashtag #Cohencidence (which trended on Twitter for a while) is linked to the idea of coincidence marking, as a portmanteau of the word “coincidence” with the common Jewish surname “Cohen”.[9]

Intentionally using triple parenthesis around one’s own name (e.g. on Twitter) is sometimes seen as an act of defiance against the alt-right.

 

13%: Racist dog whistle for African American people.[10]

 

56%: Also known as Amerimutt or La Creatura, refers to the claim that the USA is 56% white.[11]

 

1488 or 14/88:

a reference to two racist concepts, the Fourteen Words created by white supremacist David Lane (“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children,” or more rarely “Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth”) and 88 (Which originally referenced Lane’s “88 PreceptsWikipedia's W.svg” but now represents two H’s (8th letter of the alphabet) to make “HH”, for Heil Hitler.Wikipedia's W.svg) It is claimed that the 14 words were inspired by a specific sentence from Volume 1, Chapter 8 of Mein Kampf which is exactly 88 words in length, though neither Lane nor his publisher Fourteen Word Press ever claimed this and it is probably a coincidence.

 

Based:

A compliment to describe someone who is authoritative, reasonable and views situations objectively.

 

Beta/Cuck(old)/Soy Boy:

Used to describe male feminists, male ‘allies’, males who virtue signal and/or males who subscribe to any ideology which require they engage with self hatred and/or self destructive behaviour. The soy boy is a characterization that all “girly men” likely drink soy milk with the theory that soy contains phytoestrogen and therefore drinking soy raises the levels of estrogen in your body. This then gives men feminine attributes including the possibility of developing breasts, making men more prone to the feminism ideology and other effeminate features like if you feel that you are required to speak on behalf of women. You are a male. Let women speak for themselves. but this boundary confusion between gender identity can be a direct symptom to heightened estrogen via soy milk product. Note: these are rumours and myth not exactly backed up by science. More based on trolling over immutable traits shared between men who “virtue signal” or identify as “allies” or “male feminists” or other such champions of political correctness.

For example. If your avatar display photo depicts you sipping from a mug with large glasses and a single raised eyebrow you likely have higher than usual levels of estrogen as brought about by regular ingestion of soy based product. Most likely soy milk specifically. Other signs could be the desire to let your partner participate in an open relationship while neglecting your sexual relationship in the process. Hence the term cuckold. And personality traits like these make you less of a man, hence the term Beta. If:

  • you are less attractive to women than the average male,
  • you can be easily killed,
  • you have utopian visions of the world while unable to keep your own household and/or bedroom in functional, clean order,
  • you still live with your parents as an adult child,
  • are prone to participate in self-destructive behaviours or self-flagellation,
  • you pursue expediency and struggle with delayed gratification,
  • often emotionally immature and unstable at times
  • your partner finds better companionship from the dog you share

Chances are you are a beta male. Not intended to be terminology from any one specific scientific journal but more a trolling oriented attempt to measure value from leadership qualities, overall competence and your contribution to your family and society as a whole and place that at the heart of what it means to be a man. Suggesting that if you score low in these categories, a good man you do not make.

Watch Pewdiepie satire on soyboys:

 

Blood and soil:

one of the rallying cries of the alt-right. It is a translation from the German Blut und Boden,Wikipedia's W.svg a phrase which originated in German 19th-century agrarian nationalist-romanticism, and which was adopted by the Nazi Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Under the original Nazis, it indicated then that the original descendants (Blut) belonged to the land (Boden).

 

Cuckservative: 

a conservative who doesn’t hold ethno-nationalist sentiments on race and immigration. Or: they are a conservative who is cucked instead of based

 

Feels before reals:

The habit of people to react to a debate or argument by the way they feel about it, emotionally. A criticism without any real critique other than the emotional response it elicits. Or the prioritizing of one’s emotions over objective rationalization. A term influenced in large part by Ben Shapiro’s famous quote, “facts don’t care about your feelings.” And in a small way by Gad Saad’s quote, “fuck your feelings.”

 

Goy (plural: goyim):

is the standard Hebrew biblical term for a “nation”, but has also acquired the meaning of “someone who is not Jewish” (synonymous with gentile). It is not an inherently pejorative term. The term is used in order to reinforce the idea of an International Jewish Conspiracy.[73]

 

Identity politics:

The politicization of identity. In common usage refers to a tendency of people sharing a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity to form exclusive political alliances, instead of engaging in traditional broad-based party politics,[1] or promote their particular interests without regard for interests of a larger political group.[2] In academic usage, the term has been used to refer to a wide range of political activities and theoretical analysis rooted in experiences of injustice shared by different social groups.

It’s also the action of putting emphasis on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, ability or disability and gender are used to artificially restructure the societal hierarchy. If you are a white man then it would be considered politically incorrect to question any claim or accusation made by a black woman. If you are a black woman it would be politically incorrect to question any claim or accusation made by a disabled LGBT person of colour. The politicizing of identity.

Government can participate in identity politics when they introduce a bias into policy making where they essentially create a protected group over all other groups. Like when the Trudeau government put forth motion 103 (referred to the anti-islamophobia motion) where they condemn ‘hateful conduct’ against Islam and Muslims. Despite the data that reveals a rise in anti-semitism and other forms of discrimination that remains prevalent, the Liberal government voted down an amendment which would include all other religions and religious people. Studies are now being done to study Islamophobia while ignoring other forms of hate crimes.

Or when Justin Trudeau produced a gender parity cabinet despite the fact that roughly only 26% of MPs were women. prioritizing identity and visible representation (diversity) over merit. Citing the justification for doing so as “because it’s 2015”. Implying that the concept of meritocracy was old fashion, outdated, obsolete thinking. Also see intersectionality.

 

Intersectionality:

The term intersectionality was coined by Black feminist scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989. ”Intersectionality“ represents an analytic framework that attempts to identify how interlocking systems of power impact those who are most marginalized in society. It is widely seen that intersectionality is just a new label for marxism in an attempt to make marxism more palatable.

intersectionality

Watch: Panel discussion on “is intersectionality a religion?”:

 

Oppression olympics:

The supposed competition for oppression points to determine one’s place on the progressive stack or the intersectional hierarchy. In 1993, the phrase “oppression olympics” was coined by feminist author and activist Elizabeth “Betita” Martínez to challenge the idea of the “hierarchy of oppressions” when addressing inequalities faced by minorities.[98]

 

Normie:

used by the right and left to describe those who live conventional lives and often opt out of participating in the culture war. They generally accept mainstream narratives at face value whether that mainstream be the hyper partisan Fox news or CNN, if they follow any news at all. They likely do not participate in online discourse over social media and are generally unaware of cultural developments. Aka they are NORMAL people. A derogatory undertone to describe a person who is considered neutral within the culture war.

 

NPC:

In video games an NPC is a “Non-Player Character”. A bot or program often used to be interacted with within the video game. Your character walks into a building and there are other players around to interact with however there is no real person behind the character, you are interacting with the game software. The characters are programmed to say one or two things or have predetermined dialogue when receiving a quest or task from them. Where one’s actions are not a product of free will but limited to the parameters programmed for it. Also subject to all possible glitches that come along with such programming.

NPC-header-1-640x480

Watch a compilation of glitchy NPCs interactions in the popular game Oblivion:

This is often used to describe the excessive reporting by MSNBC and CNN of the Trump/Russia collusion as “orange man bad”. In other words you don’t really need to listen to what’s actually being said because all conclusions of all panel discussions and all breaking news and all analysis will lead to the same “trump is bad” sentiment. It’s engaging in a debate when you have already determined the outcome of the debate and only intend to steer the conversation towards that conclusion, without honestly contending with other sides of the argument.

An example of NPC culture on the right-wing would be how everything Trudeau ever does is always the worst possible thing. Whether sitting at the dinner table at holidays or sharing thoughts on facebook or engaging in debates using the same overused tropes rhetoric to make the same point they always make that Trudeau is the worst prime minister ever. Whether Trudeau gets a haircut or initiates a non-binding motion, it’s always just further proof that Liberals are ruining the country. They just become a talking head for the opposition.

In terms of ideologies, an NPC is someone who similarly reduces themselves to a mere talking head for the doctrine of the ideology they subscribe to. For libertarians regulation is always the enemy. For free speech absolutists speech always trumps everything else despite how indefensible the speech may be. For feminism it’s that women are always victims at the hands of men despite what studies and data reveal otherwise. For the identity politics crowd it’s the refusal to believe that the very perception of reality does not exist outside of the way they decide it to be, without needing to justify such claims. White men are allowed to have their human rights violated because they are all collectively tainted, guilty and unqualified to hold independent opinions.

The neo-marxists will in one minute claim there is no such thing as biological sex differences and the only reason we even have the conventions around men and women is because as a society we impose such conventions on blank slate babies living in an oppressive world of stereotyping but then in the next minute completely validate one’s desire to transition from one sex to the other. Without any interest of stepping outside of their confirmation bias social bubble, these NPCs remain within the parameters of their programming.

 

Post-Colonialism:

a term modeled by post-modernism with which it shares certain concepts and methods, and may be thought of as a reaction to or departure from colonialism in the same way postmodernism is a reaction to modernism. The ambiguous term colonialism may refer either to a system of government or to an ideology or world view underlying that system—in general postcolonialism represents an ideological response to colonialist thought, rather than simply describing a system that comes after colonialism. The term postcolonial studies may be preferred for this reason.

Postcolonialism encompasses a wide variety of approaches, and theoreticians may not always agree on a common set of definitions. On a simple level, it may seek through anthropological study to build a better understanding of colonial life from the point of view of the colonized people, based on the assumption that the colonial rulers are unreliable narrators.

 

Unreliable Narrators:

narrator whose credibility has been seriously compromised.[1] The term was coined in 1961 by Wayne C. Booth in The Rhetoric of Fiction.[1][2] While unreliable narrators are almost by definition first-person narrators, arguments have been made for the existence of unreliable second- and third-person narrators, especially within the context of film and television, although sometimes also in literature.[3]

(this falls under why lately Shakespeare has been removed from literature studies as through the modern lense that intersectionality provides, Shakespeare’s work is illegitimate material to study given his place of privilege and the lack of his ability to speak to the minority experience. His position of authority was deemed to be falsely appointed to him by those in positions of power and we ought to be observing him as ‘just another dead white man’ within his appropriate place on the social hierarchy.)

Narration: is the use of a written or spoken commentary to convey a story to an audience.[1] Narration encompasses a set of techniques through which the creator of the story presents their story, including:

  • Narrative point of view[2]: the perspective (or type of personal or non-personal “lens”) through which a story is communicated
  • Narrative voice[2]: the format through which a story is communicated
  • Narrative time: the grammatical placement of the story’s time-frame in the past, the present, or the future.

narrator is a personal character or a non-personal voice that the creator (author) of the story develops to deliver information to the audience, particularly about the plot. In the case of most written narratives (novels, short stories, poems, etc.), the narrator typically functions to convey the story in its entirety. The narrator may be a voice devised by the author as an anonymous, non-personal, or stand-alone entity; as the author as a character; or as some other fictional or non-fictional character appearing and participating within their own story. The narrator is considered participant if he/she is a character within the story, and non-participant if he/she is an implied character or an omniscient or semi-omniscient being or voice that merely relates the story to the audience without being involved in the actual events. Some stories have multiple narrators to illustrate the storylines of various characters at the same, similar, or different times, thus allowing a more complex, non-singular point of view.

Narration encompasses not only who tells the story, but also how the story is told (for example, by using stream of consciousness or unreliable narration). In traditional literary narratives (such as novelsshort stories, and memoirs), narration is a required story element; in other types of (chiefly non-literary) narratives, such as plays, television shows, video games, and films, narration is merely optional.

Sometimes the narrator’s unreliability is made immediately evident. For instance, a story may open with the narrator making a plainly false or delusional claim or admitting to being severely mentally ill, or the story itself may have a frame in which the narrator appears as a character, with clues to the character’s unreliability. A more dramatic use of the device delays the revelation until near the story’s end. In some cases, the reader discovers that in the foregoing narrative, the narrator had concealed or greatly misrepresented vital pieces of information. Such a twist ending forces readers to reconsider their point of view and experience of the story. In some cases the narrator’s unreliability is never fully revealed but only hinted at, leaving readers to wonder how much the narrator should be trusted and how the story should be interpreted.

 

De-Colonization:

the undoing of colonialism, the latter being the process whereby a nation establishes and maintains its domination over one or more other territories. Wikipedia

This is often used by postmodern neo-marxists to justify a form of protest aimed at attacking all aspects of whiteness in society. Everything from the tearing down of historical statues or monuments to changing education curriculum to remove the likes of Shakespeare from study. These are all viewed as forms of decolonization. As the western world itself is founded by racism, sexism, bigotry, and a range of phobias (according to the postmodern neomarxists).

 

Whiteness: 

the social construction of “whiteness” as an ideology tied to social status. Pioneers in the field include W. E. B. Du Bois (“Jefferson Davis as a Representative of Civilization”, 1890; Darkwater, 1920), James Baldwin (The Fire Next Time, 1963), Theodore W. Allen (The Invention of the White Race, 1976, expanded in 1995), Ruth Frankenberg (White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness, 1993), author and literary critic Toni Morrison (Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination, 1992) and historian David Roediger (The Wages of Whiteness, 1991). By the mid-1990s, numerous works across many disciplines analyzed whiteness, and it has since become a topic for academic courses, research and anthologies.

A central tenet of whiteness studies is a reading of history and its effects on the present that is inspired by postmodernism and historicism, in which the very concept of racial superiority is said to have been socially constructed in order to justify discrimination against non-whites. Since the 19th century, some writers have argued that the phenotypical significances attributed to specific races are without biological association, and that race is therefore not a valid biological concept.[1] Many scientists have demonstrated that racial theories are based upon an arbitrary clustering of phenotypical categories and customs, and can overlook the problem of gradations between categories.[2]

Thomas K. Nakayama and Robert L. Krizek write about whiteness as a “strategic rhetoric,” asserting, in the essay “Whiteness: A Strategic Rhetoric”, that whiteness is a product of “discursive formation” and a “rhetorical construction”. Nakayama and Krizek write, “there is no ‘true essence’ to ‘whiteness’: there are only historically contingent constructions of that social location.”[3] Nakayama and Krizek also suggest that by naming whiteness, one calls out its centrality and reveals its invisible, central position. Whiteness is considered normal and neutral, therefore, to name whiteness means that one identifies whiteness as a rhetorical construction which can be dissected to unearth its values and beliefs.

Major areas of research in whiteness studies include the nature of white privilege and white identity, the historical process by which a white racial identity was created, the relation of culture to white identity, and possible processes of social change as they affect white identity. Other topics among whiteness studies include “Whiteness and architecture” and “Whiteness and education”.

Writer David Horowitz draws a distinction between whiteness studies and other analogous disciplines. “Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil.”[48]Dagmar R. Myslinska, an Adjunct Associate Professor of Law at Fordham University, argues that whiteness studies overlooks the heterogeneity of whites’ experience, be it due to class, immigrant status,[49] or geographical location.[50]

Barbara Kay, a columnist for the National Post, has sharply criticized whiteness studies, writing that it “points to a new low in moral vacuity and civilizational self-loathing” and is an example of “academic pusillanimity.” According to Kay, whiteness studies “cuts to the chase: It is all, and only, about white self-hate.”[51]

Kay noted the leanings of the field by quoting Jeff Hitchcock, co-founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of White American Culture (CSWAC)[52] who stated in a 1998 speech:

There is no crime that whiteness has not committed against people of colour…. We must blame whiteness for the continuing patterns today… which damage and prevent the humanity of those of us within it….We must blame whiteness for the continuing patterns today that deny the rights of those outside of whiteness and which damage and pervert the humanity of those of us within it.[51][53]

Regarding whiteness studies (WS) more broadly, Kay wrote:

WS teaches that if you are white, you are branded, literally in the flesh, with evidence of a kind of original sin. You can try to mitigate your evilness, but you can’t eradicate it. The goal of WS is to entrench permanent race consciousness in everyone — eternal victimhood for nonwhites, eternal guilt for whites — and was most famously framed by WS chief guru, Noel Ignatiev, former professor at Harvard University [sic, Ignatiev was a Ph.D. student and then a tutor at Harvard, but never a professor], now teaching at the Massachusetts College of Art: “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race — in other words, to abolish the privileges of the white skin.”[51]

 

White Privilege:  

In 1974–1975, Allen extended his analysis of “white privilege”, racial oppression, and social control to the colonial period with his ground-breaking Class Struggle and the Origin of Racial Slavery: The Invention of the White Race.[31][32] With continued research, he developed his ideas as his seminal two-volume The Invention of the White Race published in 1994 and 1997.[33][34]

For almost forty years, Allen offered a detailed historical analysis of the origin, maintenance, and functioning of “white-skin privilege” and “white privilege” in such writings as: “White Supremacy in U.S. History” (1973);[35] “Class Struggle and the Origin of Racial Slavery: The Invention of the White Race” (1975);[31] “The Invention of the White Race,” Vol. 1: “Racial Oppression and Social Control” (1994, 2012);[33] “The Invention of the White Race,” Vol. 2: “The Origin of Racial Oppression in Anglo-America” (1997, 2012);[34]“Summary of the Argument of ‘The Invention of the White Race'” Parts 1[36] and 2[37] (1998); “In Defense of Affirmative Action in Employment Policy” (1998);[38] “‘Race’ and ‘Ethnicity’: History and the 2000 Census” (1999);[39] and “On Roediger’s Wages of Whiteness” (Revised Edition)”;[40]

In his historical work, Allen asserted that:

  • the “white race” was invented as a ruling class social control formation in the late 17th-/early-18th century Anglo-American plantation colonies (principally Virginia and Maryland);
  • central to this process was the ruling-class plantation bourgeoisie conferring “white race” privileges on European-American working people;
  • these privileges were not only against the interests of African Americans, they were also “poison”, “ruinous”, a baited hook, to the class interests of working people;
  • white supremacy, reinforced by “white skin privilege”, has been the main retardant of working-class consciousness in the US; and
  • struggle for radical social change should direct principal efforts at challenging white supremacy and “white skin privileges”.[27]:pp. 10–11, 34 Allen’s work influenced Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and sectors of the “new left” and paved the way for “white privilege”, “race as social construct”, and “whiteness studies”. He also raised important questions about developments in those areas, and he avoided using the term “whiteness”, using quotation marks when he did.[36][27]:pp. 8, 78 n. 187, 80–89

Laura Pulido writes about the relation of white privilege to racism.

“White privilege [is] a highly structural and spatial form of racism … I suggest that historical processes of suburbanization and decentralization are instances of white privilege and have contributed to contemporary patterns of environmental racism.”[41]

Writers such as Peggy McIntosh say that social, political, and cultural advantages are accorded to whites in global society. She argues that these advantages seem invisible to white people, but obvious to non-whites. McIntosh argues that whites utilize their whiteness, consciously or unconsciously, as a framework to classify people and understand their social locations. In addition, even though many white people understand that whiteness is associated with privilege, they do not acknowledge their privilege because they view themselves as average and non-racist. Essentially, whiteness is invisible to white people.[42]

For instance,

“I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. So I have begun in an untouched way to ask what it is like to have white privilege. I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious” (188).[42]

McIntosh calls for Americans to acknowledge white privilege so that they can more effectively attain equality in American society. She argues,

“To redesign social systems we need first to acknowledge their colossal unseen dimensions. The silences and denials surrounding privilege are the key political tool here. They keep the thinking about equality or equity incomplete, protecting unearned advantage and conferred dominance by making these taboo subjects” (192).[42]

Watch Jordan Peterson Debunk white privilege:

 

Male Privilege:

a concept within sociology for examining social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are available to men solely on the basis of their sex. A man’s access to these benefits may vary depending on how closely they match their society’s ideal masculine norm. Wikipedia

 

Dead White man/men:

there are historical figures such as philosophers like Socrates, playwrights like Shakespeare and founders like Sir John A. Macdonald, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and inventors like Alexander Graham Bell, Bill Gates, Albert Einstein. Through the lense of intersectionality and neo-marxism, these men are all visibly white and therefore placed low on the intersectionality hierarchy as tainted and guilty by association with the crimes and immoral actions of other fellow white men. The idea is that they have risen to prominence as a result of illegitimate privileging by those in positions of power and in doing so they have corrupted their positions and fields of study. And no white man can escape the crimes of the past.

Even if the men mentioned here vary in their ethnicity, these ethnicities are leveled at the feet of their visible identity. ‘Whiteness’ encompasses Jews, Italians, British, Scandinavian and anyone else who “passes” for white in the same logic as a transexual man “passes” for a woman. To classify white historically prominent figures as merely “dead white men” is an attempt to retroactively revoke their positions of power and equate them to the level of living white men today which is the bottom social class as collectively tainted and guilty and unqualified to have opinions. Banning the study of these figures is also seen as an attempt to “decolonize” the current system of oppression which their actions served to prop up. To make way for more “diverse” voices which have more authority.

Like Kylo-Ren said in The Last Jedi, “let the past die. Kill it if you have to.” But no, there is no ‘culture war’ going on. I’m just crazy. And soon I’ll just be another dead white man.

 

Jim Crow:

Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. All were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures after the Reconstruction period. The laws were enforced until 1965. Wikipedia

 

Toxic:

used as a qualifier word to operate as a red flag. A toxic relationship is characterized by insecurity, self-centeredness, mean spiritedness, power struggles over control, abusive in nature or enabling of bad habits, attitudes or codependence. Likewise, the word ‘toxic’ holds the same characterization as it is used to qualify a person or group. To signal to others the nature of that individual or group. Usually used for the purposes of politicizing. An attempt to box an individual or group and isolate them from public discourse as someone to be not listened to and dismissed. I.e. this person only gave Captain Marvel a negative review because they are a toxic troll. Not just any troll. Not someone looking for a laugh trying to prank someone. A toxic troll looking to cause harm by their actions.

Captain Marvel and Brie Larson have started to create a blueprint for how to handle toxic trolls – Vox news

It’s effectiveness comes from it’s broadness. Because it doesn’t point in any one direction as to what the nature of the behaviour is, it serves to signal to others that regardless the accusation, there is credibility. To claim someone is sexist, racist or homophobic you generally are required to cite a reference to this claim to explain the prejudice. By merely calling someone “toxic” you get to indicate that there could be various ways in which this person has displayed prejudice and from there you need only cite something disagreeable rather than offensive and the rest can be left up to others projection to fill in the blanks. A person can leave a comment that based on the marketing and personal views on the movie’s main lead they are not looking forward to said movie. For being negative or disagreeable in general the commenter is now vulnerable to being characterized, if nothing else, as toxic. And is vulnerable to having their dissent censored by website conduct policies seeking to weed out ‘hate speech’.

 

Toxic Masculinity:

Terry Kupers defines toxic masculinity as “the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence”.

Watch the Gillette advertisement on toxic masculinity:

Watch Joe Rogan react to Toxic masculinity:

Watch Jordan Peterson answer “what is the solution to toxic masculinity”:

 

Cultural Hegemony: 

In Marxist philosophycultural hegemony is the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class who manipulate the culture of that society—the beliefsexplanationsperceptionsvalues, and mores—so that their imposed, ruling-class worldview becomes the accepted cultural norm; the universally valid dominant ideology, which justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for everyone, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class.[1][2]

In philosophy and in sociology, the term cultural hegemony has denotations and connotations derived from the Ancient Greek word ἡγεμονία (hegemonia) indicating leadership and rule. In politics, hegemony is the geopolitical method of indirect imperial dominance, with which the hegemon (leader state) rules subordinate states, by the threat of intervention, an implied means of power, rather than by direct military force, that is, invasionoccupation, and annexation.[3]

 

Hegemonic Masculinity:

part of R. W. Connell‘s gender order theory, which recognizes multiple masculinities that vary across time, culture and the individual. Hegemonic masculinity is defined as a practice that legitimizes powerful men’s dominant position in society and justifies the subordination of the common male population and women, and other marginalized ways of being a man.[1] Conceptually, hegemonic masculinity proposes to explain how and why men maintain dominant social roles over women, and other gender identities, which are perceived as “feminine” in a given society.

As a sociological concept, the nature of hegemonic masculinity derives from the theory of cultural hegemony, by Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci, which analyses the power relations among the social classes of a society. Hence, in the term hegemonic masculinity, the adjective hegemonic refers to the cultural dynamics by means of which a social group claims, and sustains, a leading and dominant position in a social hierarchy; nonetheless, hegemonic masculinity embodies a form of social organization that has been sociologically challenged and changed.

 

Post-Modernism:

a broad movement that developed in the mid- to late 20th century across philosophy, the arts, architecture, and criticism and that marked a departure from modernism. The term has also more generally been applied to the historical era following modernity and the tendencies of this era. Wikipedia

Watch Jordan Peterson explain post-modernism:

 

Neo-Marxism:

encompasses 20th-century approaches that amend or extend Marxism and Marxist theory, typically by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions such as critical theory, psychoanalysis, or existentialism. Wikipedia

Watch Jordan Peterson Answer “why is marxism so attractive?”:

 

Problematic:

constituting or presenting a problem or difficulty. Usually used to red flag a person or content as being inappropriate in nature. Those who use the term will often explain the problematic content or person of being “potentially harmful” which is a notion that subscribes to the postmodern concept that harm extends to feelings beyond mere physical altercation. Where ideas are dangerous and words are violence. i.e. to not use a person’s preferred pronoun would be equated to robbing them of their humanity or attempting to exterminate them.

An example of a person who is often described as “problematic” would be Jordan Peterson, author of 12 rules for life. He has been virtually denounced as hateful and accused of abusing his students but as his book has now passed 3 million copies, the hit pieces have all fallen flat. Because those who oppose him cannot make regular slander stick due to the fact that is isn’t a sexist or racist or a homophobe and if anything he actually works to de-radicalize individuals from extremist ideological views. Making his message to the world a net GOOD rather than a net negative. So it’s much easier to simply rate him and his content as problematic.

Because he will have a conversation with anyone and everyone he has taken photos and had conversations with known counter culture ‘trolls’. Even though he has also been denounced as a jewish shill by the ethno-nationalists, that isn’t enough evidence for the postmodern neo-marxists to dismiss concerns around radicalization. And through this guilt-by-association he is deemed problematic. Even though the accusation is hollow and grounded in deceit it still impacts him to this day as he most recently found himself disinvited from a fellowship collaboration to Cambridge University over a study on the Bible. And his book 12 rules for life has been banned from New Zealand in light of the Christchurch shooting. Despite the fact you can still access Mein Kampf.

 

Land Acknowledgement:

Land acknowledgements are an ‘honest’ and ‘historically accurate’ way to recognize the traditional First Nations, Métis and/or Inuit territories of a place. They can be presented verbally or visually: think signage, short theatre presentations or simple spoken-word greetings. According to Anishinaabe-kwe Wanda Nanibush, the first curator of Indigenous art at the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO), land acknowledgements have one goal, regardless of format: They commemorate Indigenous peoples’ principal kinship to the land—and the fact that we have not and cannot be erased from her, our collective first mother. “They’re a starting place to a change in how the land is seen and talked about,” she says. “[They] help redefine how people place themselves in relation to First Peoples.”

Watch Lindsay Shepherd on “why I reject indigenous land acknowledgements”:

Inspired by the 94 recommended calls to action contained in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (now known as the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, or NCTR), land acknowledgements are a necessary first step toward honouring the original occupants of a place. They also help Canadians recognize and respect Indigenous peoples’ inherent kinship beliefs when it comes to the land, especially since those beliefs were restricted for so long. (as per locallove.ca)

 

Progressive stack:

A reference to the Intersectionality hierarchy where victimhood is synonymous with virtue by granting the dispossessed a status of “marginalization” whether it be people or society or by extension the universe as a whole as being their oppressor, marginalizing them. Add your ethnicity and sexual orientation or gender identity and these will determine your placement on the social hierarchy of intersectionality. Each oppressed check mark representing another virtue to add to the ‘progressive stack’. This is where “virtue signalling” operates as an attempt to accumulate progressive points by proclaiming all the ways in which you utilize your oppression to grant you authority or perhaps your allyship with the oppressed to score points by proxy.

For example, if you were a disabled, lesbian, trans, muslim whos father is black and mother is native then you are essentially untouchable by anyone and everyone. You could probably commit murder and if not for the courts upholding existing laws against murder this society would simply characterize your actions as using the tools of your oppressors against them. BECAUSE WHAT ABOUT THE CRUSADES!? REMEMBER THE CRUSADES!? NONE OF THEM GOT ARRESTED BY COPS IN 2019, SO CONVENIENT!

Whereas if you are a white man you have the opportunity to choose not to breed and further your ethnic privilege. You can ‘step down’ from your voice in society and use your position of power to prop up minorities. Whether you aid their bid for political office or work with non-profit organizations looking to aid marginalized communities or donate your income to such people, these are various ways in which you can seek allyship. When a protest takes place you are expected to participate and use your position of power to disrupt the status quo, by any means necessary, including the use of force. And thus your progressivism stacks ever higher as you seek to climb out of the social hell from where you were placed in the name of progress.

 

Real/True Diversity:

often used to characterize diversity of opinion as more valuable than diversity of identity (sex/gender, race, religion, etc). The idea that all have an equal say in the global conversation and that you should be judged by your ideas, words and opinions rather than by superficial characteristics like skin colour and genitalia. Not used to justify or to promote disparities in visible representation within public spaces or workplaces/institutions but often misconstrued by leftists as a dog whistle to white supremacy and as an objection to immigration and minorities.

 

Gas Lighting:

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity.Wikipedia

 

Dog Whistle: 

political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different, or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup. The analogy is to a dog whistle, whose ultrasonic whistling sound is heard by dogs but inaudible to humans.

Watch PSA Sitch explains dog whistling:

 

Visible Representation:

a reference to visible diversity. If you are a woman watching a movie without any women you do not have representation. If you’re a person of colour before a jury of white people you do not have representation. If you’re a gay person voting for all straight candidates you do not have visible representation. This form of logic is used to explain what many are now calling “barriers to access”. The argument is that a woman is less likely to run for office if the city council is dominated by men. Less people of colour are likely to apply to jobs at a workplace where majority of employees are white. This lack of ‘visible representation’ creates ‘barriers to access’ as it can serve to signal to others that they are not welcome.

This is also considered an example of patriarchy and white privilege by dominating systems and institutions. In other words if you can find an excuse to stop you from getting involved you can then use your own excuse to cite another excuse as to how society is racist and sexist. Not to say there isn’t any validity to this argument worth exploring but visible representation is nothing more than a palatable way of asking for equal outcomes. The process of eliminating all disparities by enforcing all workplaces and institutions to reach a racial and gender parity of employment. See Equity.

 

Equity:

Equality of outcome, equality of condition, or equality of results is a political concept which is central to some political ideologies and is used regularly in political discourse, often in contrast to the term equality of opportunity. Wikipedia

Watch Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt explain equality of outcome:

 

Disparities:

a disparity is a form of discrepancy or inconsistency/imbalance. We can observe economic disparities between different regions in the country. We can observe disparities in career jobs. How majority of plumbers are men and majority of nurses are women. Disparities in earnings between employees between gender and ethnicity. Through the lense of post-modern neo-marxists disparities are the basis for their theories on systematic discrimination with regards to things like wage gaps and gender gaps. Often used to argue for equality of opportunity.

The argument being that all disparities represent discrimination or a result of ‘barriers to access’. Instead of entertaining possible multiple variables that could be influencing these disparities the neo-marxists simply chalk these discrepancies up to discrimination. More so to use as evidence of their greater claims of patriarchy, whiteness and western colonial dominance. Rather than attempting to actually address the disparities in question towards finding an actual solution.

Watch Jordan Peterson on whether men and women can ever truly be technically ‘equal’:

 

Safe Space:

The term safe space refers to places created for individuals who feel marginalized to come together to communicate regarding their experiences with marginalization, most commonly located on university campuses in the western world, but also at workplaces, as in the case of Nokia. Wikipedia

 

Trigger warning: 

a statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc., alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material (often used to introduce a description of such content).

“there probably should be a trigger warning for people dealing with grief”
The concept behind a trigger warning is to help an individual avoid a “trauma trigger” which is a psychological stimulus that prompts recall of a previous traumatic experience. The stimulus itself need not be frightening or traumatic and may be only indirectly or superficially reminiscent of an earlier traumatic incident, such as a scent or a piece of clothing.Wikipedia

Watch a panel discussion between Christina Hoff-Sommers, Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying mediated by Peter Boghossian about trigger warnings, safe spaces and academic freedoms:

 

Libtard:

a derogatory term to characterize liberals as retards.

 

Snowflake:

argued to originate from the movie Fight Club where Brad Pitt’s character says “You are not special. You’re not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You’re the same decaying organic matter as everything else.” It is a term used to describe a person who is overly sensitive. Often used by conservatives to make fun of liberals. Also used to refer to social justice warriors for their rhetoric around compassion, feelings, trigger warnings and safe spaces.

 

White Knight:

a pejorative term to describe men who defend women on the internet. Or feel the need to speak for women on women’s issues. Possibly in an attempt to virtue signal their virtues around equal rights. Or to act as an apologist for women. The assumption is that they are looking for a romantic reward in return.[150][151]

 

White Genocide:

The white genocide conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory, generally associated with neo-Nazi, far-right, alt-right, identitarian and white nationalist, supremacist, and white separatist ideologies, … Wikipedia

 

White Guilt:

the individual or collective guilt felt by some white people for harm resulting from racist treatment of ethnic minorities by other white people both historically and currently in the United States and to a lesser extent in Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Wikipedia

eBznFYm

Watch Vice news cover one method of alleviating white guilt:

Watch Lauren Chen Debunk white guilt:

 

Populism:

Populism is a range of political approaches that deliberately appeal to “the people”, often juxtaposing this group against the “elite”. There is no single definition of the term, which developed in the 19th century and has been used to mean various things since that time. Wikipedia

 

Social Justice Warrior:

an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, as well as identity politics. Wikipedia

SJWs operate in online mobs and tend to operate in coordinated attacks to slander and spam whomever they deem problematic. Anyone who speaks out against political correctness will likely see their social media spammed with threats and accusations. They can also find that the mob has gone to their employer and attempted to get the individual fired.

In some cases SJWs can track down their target’s personal information and DOX them by releasing their personal contact and address information out on the internet for the world to see and for others to use to harass the person in question. In the most extreme cases SJWs will call local police with fake threats which triggers swat teams to respond and infiltrate the targeted person’s home. In one occasion of swatting a person was actually shot and killed by police.

Watch Joe Rogan with Jamie Kilstein about being a reformed SJW:

Watch Blaire White on how she used to be a SJW:

Watch We the Internet TV comedy sketch with a SJW therapist:

Watch exposing social justice with Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay:

Watch Family Guy’s sketch on the SJW mob:

Watch John Stossel on SJW tactics:

Watch interview with Jake Shields about Berkley SJW protesters:

Watch SJW complete takeover at Evergreen college:

Watch Tim Pool discuss social justice has become the left’s “non-theistic religion”:

 

Doxing:

Doxing or doxxing is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifying information about an individual or organization. The methods employed to acquire this information include searching publicly available databases and social media websites, hacking, and social engineering. The practice is considered legally as an invasion of privacy. Wikipedia

 

Swatting:

Swatting is the criminal harassment tactic of deceiving an emergency service into sending a police and emergency service response team to another person’s address. This is triggered by false reporting of a serious law enforcement emergency, such as a bomb threat, murder, hostage situation, or other alleged incident. Wikipedia

Watch 10 streamers get swatted live:

 

Ageism:

any criticism or negative sentiment that affects young or old people, regardless of validity.

 

Cisgender:

a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth. Someone who identifies as a woman and was assigned female at birth is, for example, a cisgender woman. The term cisgender is the opposite of the word transgender. Related terms include cissexism and cisnormativity. Wikipedia

 

Essentialism:

the idea that people, objects, and ideas can be identified based on externally observable features. Although this is empirically true, social justice warriors consider this idea to be problematic.

 

Ethnocentrism:

Ethnocentrism is the act of judging another culture based on preconceptions that are found in the values and standards of one’s own culture. Wikipedia

 

Gender binary:

the idea that there are only two genders; male and female.

 

Gender identity:

a person’s internal sense of gender. This may or may not be in alignment with biological reality.

 

Hate crime:

legally speaking it is the incitement of violence or the act of violence against an identifiable group based on their religion or ethnicity or sexual orientation. Socially it has been extended to depict statements, opinions and symbols which form of prejudice motivated by some aspect of the identity, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability.

 

Internalized oppression:

a term used to denounce a member of a group said to be oppressed who deviates from social justice ideology narrative. If a woman comes out in opposition to the Feminist narrative of patriarchy then she is dismissed as having internalized the sexism in a form of self hatred. If a muslim comes to the defense of free speech it is internalized racism in the form of self hatred. If a trans person objects to the push to affirm transition then that is internalized homophobia or transphobia specifically.

Ally:

Varying from white ally, male ally, straight ally, etc. An ally is someone who aligns themselves with the same politics as a group within the culture war. The trans movement or other LBGTQ movements, the black lives matters movement or the Marxist academics, etc. You are an ally in the context that you are not a member of that community but serve to further that community’s agenda. You then support the group financially or otherwise and advocate for that group.

Watch PSA Sitch breakdown what the term Ally really means:

 

MRA:

a Men’s Rights Activist. A new movement brought about to advocate for men’s issues and often hold meetings to discuss mens rights and to offer a counter narrative to feminist propaganda.

Watch Barbara Kay speak at CAFE conference:

Watch the trailer for the movie “The Red Pill”:

 

MGTOW:

stands for Men Going Their Own Way. Men Going Their Own Way is a mostly pseudonymous online community of men supported by websites and social media presences cautioning men against serious romantic relationships with women, especially marriage and cohabitation. The community is part of what is more broadly termed the manosphere. Wikipedia

The problem with this movement is they often converse in a bubble of confirmation bias and can result in them commenting or sharing content that can be very dehumanizing to women and does not encourage men to be better people. Some of the most cringey, disgusting videos you can find online are from the MGTOW community. The common theme that I could see is there is a distinct lack of taking responsibility for one’s own actions. All negative outcomes are blamed on women or society’s unfair expectations of men. Any legitimate points they have tends to get lost in their blaming of everyone else for their problems. And the refusal to improve their lives in such a way to embrace healthy relationships in any meaningful way. And this makes them just as negative and ideologically possessed as feminists who dehumanize and attack men.

Watch a MGTOW community member “Turd flinging monkey” on one of his sex toy review:

 

Incel:

members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, a state they describe as inceldom. Self-identified incels are largely white and are almost exclusively male heterosexuals. The term is a portmanteau of “involuntary celibates”. Wikipedia

Watch Paul Joseph Watson on the truth about incels:

 

THOT:

According to Urban Dictionary’s top definition, a “thot is a hoe,” with the plural being “thotties.” Other definitions, however, reveal a little more about how the word itself came to be: “Thot” is actually an acronym that can either stand for “that hoe over there” or “thirsty hoe over there.” Generally Thots are women who use their sex appeal to gain views and likes on video their content creation shared either over youtube or twitch or tiktok. This can include sexual perk tier rewards for donators or subscribers. Some women who participate in camming may use social media platforms to advertise with the intent of luring customers to their official cam channels or an online store to purchase personalized content or products. It’s widely seen as a modern form of prostitution without direct participation in sex with the buyer.

Watch Paul Joseph Watson on THOT patrol:

Watch Philip Defranco on #ThotAudit:

 

Wamen:

On June 2nd, 2017, PewDiePie uploaded a video titled “How to: Respect Women!”, in which he discusses how to Respect Women. Within two months, the video received upwards of 4.5 million views and 36,400 comments.

Urban dictionary describes wamen as a rare species of women that usually need more attention/respect than any other women also some of them are an idiot (sometimes ask a stupid question like “Is math related to science?”) “Nobody respect wamen better than pewdiepie himself!”

 

On July 10th, PewDiePie uploaded a video titled “Never Say This to a Gamer,” in which he references the “wamen” joke several times (shown below, left). On July 13th, YouTuber Day by Dave uploaded a music remix of PewDiePie’s “How to: Respect Women” episode (shown below, right). Within three weeks, the video received more than 162,000 views and 840 comments.

 

Mansplaining:

a pejorative term meaning ” to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner”. Author Rebecca Solnit ascribes the phenomenon to a combination of “overconfidence and cluelessness”.Wikipedia

 

Misgendering: 

refer to (someone, especially a transgender person) using a word, especially a pronoun or form of address, that does not correctly reflect the gender with which they identify.

“There’s going to be a lot of people for whom this is going to mean nothing, but for the few it does impact, it means the world,” Facebook software engineer Brielle Harrison told the Associated Press. Harrison, who worked on the project, is in the process of gender transition, from male to female.

Facebook will allow users to select between three pronouns: “him,” “her” or “their.”

The following are the 58 gender options identified by ABC News:

  • Agender
  • Androgyne
  • Androgynous
  • Bigender
  • Cis
  • Cisgender
  • Cis Female
  • Cis Male
  • Cis Man
  • Cis Woman
  • Cisgender Female
  • Cisgender Male
  • Cisgender Man
  • Cisgender Woman
  • Female to Male
  • FTM
  • Gender Fluid
  • Gender Nonconforming
  • Gender Questioning
  • Gender Variant
  • Genderqueer
  • Intersex
  • Male to Female
  • MTF
  • Neither
  • Neutrois
  • Non-binary
  • Other
  • Pangender
  • Trans
  • Trans*
  • Trans Female
  • Trans* Female
  • Trans Male
  • Trans* Male
  • Trans Man
  • Trans* Man
  • Trans Person
  • Trans* Person
  • Trans Woman
  • Trans* Woman
  • Transfeminine
  • Transgender
  • Transgender Female
  • Transgender Male
  • Transgender Man
  • Transgender Person
  • Transgender Woman
  • Transmasculine
  • Transsexual
  • Transsexual Female
  • Transsexual Male
  • Transsexual Man
  • Transsexual Person
  • Transsexual Woman
  • Two-Spirit

 

Deadnaming: 

For many — though not all — people who are transgender, undergoing a name change can be an affirming step in the transition process. It can help a person who’s transgender and the people in their lives begin to see them as the gender they know themselves to be. It can also alleviate discomfort that may be associated with one’s old name.

Unfortunately, many people may struggle to adhere to a trans person’s new, affirmed name. In some situations, other people may refuse to acknowledge the change altogether. And in situations that involve government-issued identification, having a legal name that doesn’t align with one’s affirmed name can cause staff and personnel to inadvertently refer to a trans person by the wrong name.

This is what’s referred to as deadnaming.

Deadnaming occurs when someone, intentionally or not, refers to a person who’s transgender by the name they used before they transitioned. You may also hear it described as referring to someone by their “birth name” or their “given name.”

This can occur anywhere in a trans person’s life, from personal relationships to the classroom or workplace. (www.healthline.com)

 

Cancel Culture:

a term used to refer to the phenomenon of “cancelling” or no longer morallyfinancially, and/or digitally supporting people—usually celebrities—events, art works such as songs, films or TV shows, or things that many have deemed unacceptable or problematic. It has been defined as “a call to boycott someone – usually a celebrity – who has shared a questionable or unpopular opinion on social media”.[1] Cancellation often arises in “response to a person’s comments or actions”.[2]

The term is often used as a hashtag on social media, where it originated from Black Twitter, which is a cultural identity consisting of Black users on Twitter from around the world focused on issues of interest to the black community, particularly in the United States.[3]The expression “cancelling”, in reference to cancel culture, has been used since 2015, with widespread usage of the expression beginning in 2018.[3]

Lisa Nakamura, a professor at the University of Michigan, described cancel culture as “an agreement not to amplify, signal boost, give money to. People talk about the attention economy — when you deprive someone of your attention, you’re depriving them of a livelihood.”[4] Cancel culture has been defined as a “makeshift digital contract wherein people loosely agree not to support a person (especially economically) in order to somehow deprive them of their livelihood”.[5] Jonah Engel Bromwich from The New York Timesdefines it as “total disinvestment in something (anything)”, often for “transgressing fans’ expectations”.[2]

The impact of being cancelled ranges from “mostly conceptual or socially performative”, in cases such as the social media efforts at “cancellation” of Kanye West even during the same year as a number one Billboard album, to actually leading to cancellation of shows or activities, as in the cases of “Bill O’ReillyCharlie Rose, and Roseanne Barr“, who had their TV shows canceled due to public pressure.[2]

Watch Joe Rogan speak with Sam Harris about cancel culture:

 

Microaggression:

a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group. Wikipedia

 

Patriarchy:

a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. Wikipedia

 

Rape culture:

a sociological concept for a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality. Wikipedia

 

Shitlord:

a person who engages in problematic speech and/or behavior.

 

SWERF:

sex-worker exclusionary radical feminism.

 

TERF:

trans-exclusionary radical feminism.

 

Believe (All) Women:

This is the feminist concept that women do not lie and that everyone should believe everything that all women say. This expression was popularized during the Jian Ghomeshi trial and from there went mainstream during the Bret Kavanaugh hearings with Christine Blasey-Ford.

 

Credibly Accused: 

This is the act of challenging the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The way it is used in the context of feminism is that if the accuser is a woman then the accusation is credible enough for the accused to be guilty until proven innocent. Usually used in cases of sexual assault accusations and was a term made most popular during the Bret Kavanaugh hearings with Christine Blasey-Ford.

Watch Tim Pool discuss “credible” accusations:

 

Victim blaming:

to suggest that people have some responsibility for their own well-being and self-defense.

 

Xenophobia:

the fear and distrust of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange. Xenophobia can involve perceptions of an ingroup towards an outgroup and can manifest itself in suspicion of the …Wikipedia

 

Cultural Marxism:

Cultural Marxism can be a controversial term—some assert there’s no such thing, and others use the term as a catch-all for anything they see as undermining society. In short, cultural Marxism is a revolutionary leftist idea that traditional culture is the source of oppression in the modern world. Cultural Marxism is often linked to an insistence upon political correctness, multiculturalism, and perpetual attacks on the foundations of culture: the nuclear family, marriage, patriotism, traditional morality, law and order, etc. Cultural Marxists are assumed to be committed to establishing economic Marxism, in which case their cultural attacks are a necessary preparation for their ultimate goal.

After World War I, some Marxist philosophers felt the need to modify their political strategy. Karl Marx generally saw culture as a secondary concern. His successors realized that culture was, in fact, critical to social change. When a society is willing to criticize its institutions, it is ready to make changes. The result of these ideas was the Frankfurt School, a generic term for Marxist philosophy focused on social criticism and bottom-up change. In particular, the Frankfurt School rejected the idea of absolute truth and promoted aggressive criticism of all aspects of life and society. Some early observers referred to this new approach as cultural Marxism to distinguish it from the earlier, classical forms of Marxism. More orthodox Marxists do not see cultural Marxism as Marxist at all. (GotQuestions.org)

Media report that cultural marxism is a term used by white supremacists as they refute the concept of race and gender being a social construct as a war against Darwinism. Darwinism being their argument to justify race purity in their arguments around ethno-nationalism.

Watch Jordan Peterson explain Postmodernism and Cultural marxism:

Watch Sargon of Akkad discuss cultural marxism trending on twitter:

 

Socialism:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers’ self-management, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. Wikipedia

Watch Now This World answer “what is socialism?”:

 

Democratic Socialism:

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy. Wikipedia

Watch Bernie Sanders explain ‘democratic socialism’:

Watch Why ‘democratic socialism’ doesn’t work:

Watch Ben Shapiro Debunking 7 ‘democratic socialism’ myths:

 

 

Cultural Appropriation:

at times also phrased cultural misappropriation, is the adoption of elements of one culture by members of another culture. This can be controversial when members of a dominant culture appropriate from disadvantaged minority cultures. Wikipedia

 

Watch the Globe and Mail discuss what is cultural appropriation:

Watch what actual native americans think about cultural appropriation:

Watch Lauren Chen discuss cultural appropriation:

Watch Jordan Peterson and the idea of cultural appropriation:

 

Regressive Left:

(also formulated as “regressive liberals” and “regressive leftists”) is a neologism and political epithet, used as a pejorative to describe a section of left-wing politics who are accused of holding paradoxical, reactionary views by their tolerance of illiberal principles and ideologies. Other similar terms would be alt-left, radical-left, leftist, far-left, reactionary-left, identitarian-left, authoritarian-left, ill-liberals. Wikipedia

Watch Dave Rubin discuss the regressive left:

Watch David Pakman discuss regressive left:

 

 

quote-political-correctness-is-tyranny-with-manners-charlton-heston-54-2-0209

Final Words

 

In closing I would like to say that language does change. But there is organic evolution and then there is artificial injection of new terms for the purposes of manipulation and in either way the policing of any language is never a good idea. I am not a free speech absolutist in the sense that I agree with the current limitations on it. From incitement to violence and defamation, etc. But aside from that the idea censoring speech is nothing more than fascism. Our sovereignty begins with our individual self and extends to our property and that extends to our town and region and that extends to our province and country in the greater destiny of the world.

But when people hear those advocate for free speech there’s this weird assumption that advocates are apologizing for or forgiving reprehensible speech and/or behaviour. Obviously there are things people can say that is just indefensible. But I ask you this. Have you ever had a moment of weakness where you’ve found yourself as the one uttering indefensible things? So what do we do about you now? Do you have your right to speech revoked? Do we bar you from access to things online or elsewhere in the world? Even a murder conviction has an expiration date.

In law when someone is convicted of a crime they serve time in prison. This prison sentence represents 2 things. It represents punishment. But it also represents rehabilitation. Because the hope is that once you’ve served your time your second chance will result in you being a productive member of society whose contributions will total a net good for the world. That you will leave behind a legacy that contributes to the greater destiny of the world. The road to redemption is as important as the punishment for the prison sentence for the whole process to represent true justice. Are there those who are irredeemable? I think there actually is. No one wants to see Paul Bernardo back out on the streets. Should we have just killed him? That’s a capital punishment conversation for another day. So I guess we just leave him locked up forever? It may not be the best solution but it’s the best one I believe we have. And that’s at the heart of this whole issue. There isn’t a real solution to this whole hateful conduct stuff. No one wants to defend a neo-nazi’s speech but free speech is still the best of a bad situation.

This isn’t even to consider the NCR cases. Not criminally responsible. Like in January of 2011 when Richard Kachkar stole a snowplow and ran over and killed Sgt. Ryan Russell. Kachkar was found to be not criminally responsible as the incident came about from a “psychotic episode.” And today Kachkar is enjoying his freedom after his release and is doing ‘very well’. Despite, to my knowledge, never actually receiving a diagnosis for whatever his mental illness was exactly. And at the time of his parole hearing Russell’s wife was not even allowed to deliver a victim impact statement because it was actually argued successfully that since Kachkar had been found NCR then no actual crime had been committed. As if Sgt. Ryan Russell had simply died of some kind of oopsie like a fluke skiing incident. And his son, Noah, who was 2 at the time, will grow up without knowing his father and without memories of his father. Kachkar has never apologized to the Russell family. Is this justice?

Watch Sgt. Russell’s widow in a press conference after the NCR ruling:

Watch widow of Sgr. Ryan Russell learning Kachkar has been released:

Now I am in no position to make any determinations over this court case nor am I fit to discuss matters surrounding NCR. But I do feel it’s vital we have checks and balances to advocate for the mentally ill. I just feel we are far from a perfect model in how we handle each case by case situation. And this means there is no existing model that comes even close to how we handle something like online hate and hate incidents. But these people are not normal thinking, normal functioning people. And if we truly want to have a proper conversation around mental health we cannot be ignorant to the things that are uncomfortable to talk about.

As long as the conversation is dominated by forms of punishment we won’t get justice. There is no justice without rehabilitation. And in that there must be a road to redemption for wrong think and bad behaviour. The answer is never going to be to ban groups like the ethno-nationalists. In the age of social media everyone will always have a seat at the table. You can move the table but you’ll never take away their seat. So you want them at the table where we can see them. Because it’s when their conduct gets taken to the street is when we see events like Charlottesville and Christchurch.

Censorship is nothing more than wishful thinking. There’s a reason why Twitter’s attempts to regulate hateful conduct has ended up with them banning anyone who tweets things like “learn to code“. Because none of us are truly righteous. And to leave such power in the hands of any one person or institution to define what is “hate” or “hateful conduct” is only playing with fire. It’s impossible to draw clear boundaries around such a subjective concept. We are all flawed, tainted individuals ripe with vices and limitations.

For crying out loud, there’s a reason that when handed the power to regulate online hate the first person they went after was a comedian, Count Dankula, for a video of his pug giving the Nazi salute. And now the UK is seeing people actually having police come to their door for misgendering people on Twitter. No one person is qualified to make such judgements and so we must assume that anyone with that power will always be the worst person to hold that power. Because to assume any one of does not bear the capacity for the worst atrocities possible is to just be ignorant of 2000 years of history on the planet Earth.

It only shows a deep lack of knowledge and understanding around all of these issues so of course the only solution that comes to mind is “well, let’s just ban it.” What do you really know about vaccines? Or about the kind of paranoia that breed conspiratorial thinking? What do you really know about mental health? Or even about language for that matter? Do you think it ought to be left up to YOU to decide what happens with Richard Kachkar? So why do you think you have any right to decide how we handle any of these complex problems?

The internet did not CREATE these people, it just revealed them to us. Violent crimes have not increased over time the media just reports on them more now. This phenomena is, I think, comparable to how everyone from every cleek and tribe coming together to all the same social medias and simply seeing more things they wouldn’t normally be looking for. And instead of simply ignoring the content it’s far more fun to engage in the road rage style outrage. Outrage is fun. I doubt it’s even really about the content itself. So why do we even humour these mobs with reactions? How are they not the very trolls they accuse everyone else of being?

If you’re anything like me you’re an armchair expert at best. Forming mobs to lobby billion dollar corporations to censor and ban public access and discourse is never going to be the answer to anything. EVER. And in the great sweeping movement to ban wrongthink you will inevitably find yourself being visited by the gestapo and by then there will be no one left to speak for you. If social media is a public utility then to ban or censor someone is the equivalent to cutting off their access to potable water and heat.

10 years ago I would’ve called that claim bullshit but in today’s world where the internet tracks and records everything you do and everywhere you go then the implications that come with banning or censoring a person are far greater reaching than simple access to websites. It’s directly tied to our banking, our credit, our reputation, our shopping, our careers, our networking, our research, our privacy and this can even affect our assets. Just throw in some travel restrictions and how is this not the social credit system China has rolled out?

Watch Tim Pool cover a journalist facing hate crime for misgendering:

In Canada all it takes is a marijuana conviction to bar you from entering America. You don’t think this online mob justice can’t affect one’s ability to travel? How about being put on a hate list? No better example exists than that of the Southern Poverty Law Centre. In an attempt to fight “hate” they are defaming many innocent people and have been weaponized as an activist tool.

This is no longer the days of logging off. Even in the real world we are never truly logged off. If it’s not the watch on our wrist uploading our location to the cloud, it’s the GPS in our phones tracking our every move. If it’s not the smart phone listening to everything we say then it’s our various home assistants. If nothing else it’s the security footage at every place we go, it’s the banks keeping track of our credit and spending behaviors, it’s the roomba uploading the schematics of our home to the cloud. It’s google and facebook storing all our search history and website activity.

So how is banning not an act of locking that person up and throwing away the key? It’s actually got farther reaching effects than actual house arrest. And when the internet has deemed you unfit to exist, where is the appeal process? These are not government bodies or police institutions or religious entities. These are billion dollar silicon valley corporations and we’re actually asking them to act as judge, jury and executioner? Really? Every time someone calls for censorship they’re actually calling for the dystopia. Because the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

 

“Political correctness is America’s newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people’s language with strict codes and rigid rules. I’m not sure that’s the way to fight discrimination. I’m not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.”

― George Carlin, When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?